ForumsNews and Feedback[Official] What is a Knight?

404 55787
Ferret
offline
Ferret
9,287 posts
Constable

'Knighthood': What is a 'Knight'? And what does 'Knighthood' mean?

'Knighthood' and the title 'Knight' is bestowed upon a user that has shown exemplary deeds and outstanding behavior as a member of the Armor Games Community. This exclusive title is only granted to those users that have earned a special place among the citizens of the Kingdom.

How do I become a Knight?

Care about the community and other users and catch the eye of moderators or admins, they are the ones who choose who is Knighted. Don't ask to be Knighted, that's a good way not to be Knighted.

What can Knights do?

-They have access to a Knight-only Forum.
-They have access to Knight-only armatars
-Special forum coloring and badge.
-Knight Gilding

I'll add more to this sticky if there are further Questions.

  • 404 Replies
SirLegendary
online
SirLegendary
16,316 posts
Marquis

1) There is nothing wrong with the last quote and 2) both pang and Matt have already apologized for their behavior and anything that may come off aggressively. Sorry for not quoting but I am posting this from a mobile device.

His point is knights were singled out and people were using the case that way.

The neutral Knights, I assume, are the inactive ones, in which case it is an excellent way to prove a point, because they are a prime example of the flaws in the knighting system. As for "negative activity decreasing morale," morale is already low. You give the impression that we need to stop talking about problems because it makes people sad, which is really disappointing to be honest. This "negative activity" is concerned users pointing out a serious problem in the interest of improving the site. It is necessary, negative or not.

Actually, just because a knight was neutral in this debate, that doesn't mean they are inactive in any way. A lot of the knights are actually active. Just not in this thread because they don't want to be involved in this. In fact, this debate is pulling in more and more users. Why did CourtJester have to be a part of this? He's pretty active. This debate was considered to be done already, can't we stop it before it attracts more attention? All the points have been made, the only reasons for this debate still being alive don't involve Verwaltung anymore. For some reason, every single knight has to be pulled into this, which is wrong. Stop thinking about this logically, think morally now, us knights (like said) are people, not statues or images to be used as examples for a debate that unnecessarily included us.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

Actually, just because a knight was neutral in this debate, that doesn't mean they are inactive in any way. A lot of the knights are actually active. Just not in this thread because they don't want to be involved in this. In fact, this debate is pulling in more and more users. Why did CourtJester have to be a part of this? He's pretty active. This debate was considered to be done already, can't we stop it before it attracts more attention? All the points have been made, the only reasons for this debate still being alive don't involve Verwaltung anymore. For some reason, every single knight has to be pulled into this, which is wrong. Stop thinking about this logically, think morally now, us knights (like said) are people, not statues or images to be used as examples for a debate that unnecessarily included us.

I have to agree that this is where it seems to be going. And I don't like it that specific knights are starting to be mentioned. But unfortunately, like Matt pointed out before, if you leave Something in this website It Will Die.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,574 posts
Duke

I've hesitated to weigh in here, but I think there's something worth considering here. There have already been some good posts explaining why giving justification for knighting user X might not be a good idea. I want to speak to a broader point.

We already know that knights are "Noble contributors and exemplary citizens of the kingdom". But this is a necessary condition for knighthood, and it seems like you guys are wanting to know the sufficient conditions. In other words, it seems as though you guys are looking for certain things a user can do that are 'good enough' to get them knighted.

Maybe this isn't explicitly being asked for, but by providing reasons for knighting a user were are seeming to list these sufficient conditions. But the fact is that *we* don't even know what these sufficient conditions are. We knighted a user because of some great reviews - a decision I hadn't even considered until it came up. And I can see other contributions warranting the status of knighthood that we also haven't really considered.

There's also the issue of what are called defeaters. A user might have fulfilled the necessary and sufficient conditions but, because of a number of reasons (e.g. lots of bans or a poor attitude at times) we might hold off on knighting a user. In short, knighthood isn't the sort of thing that admits of analysis. By giving out all this information, we are encouraging users to try to start analysing this notion of knighthood.

KentyBK
offline
KentyBK
567 posts
Peasant

giving justification for knighting user X might not be a good idea

knights are "Noble contributors and exemplary citizens of the kingdom"

Ultimately, the heart of this entire discussion is that these ideas seemingly contradict each other.

While I understand the reasons why the administration would choose to not publicly reveal every decision that went into a knighting, what they also need to realize is that not saying anything at all robs the entire thing of necessary transparency.

Knights are supposed to be "exemplary citizens", yet the average user has no way to know what about a person's behaviour is noteworthy enough to be awarded the title. And once you're in that situation, you undermine what knights are supposed to represent, since from the user's perspective, seemingly anyone could be knighted for an arbitrary amount of unknown reasons.

Which is of course how this entire thing started. Since the qualifications for knights are only very loosely defined (and staff decisions are never really justified), veteran members are going to be upset once they feel newly chosen knights don't properly represent the community, or the title, in their mind.

ScrewTheLag
offline
ScrewTheLag
1,132 posts
Chancellor

Moegreche and SirLegendary have a good point, some people are looking at this as "what should a person do to be knight-worthy?" instead of "how should we encourage people to do what they should do?".And before anyone takes it the wrong way, no I don't mean this as "AG is using knights to promote constructive behaviour" otherwise a lot more people would be knighted already since they have contributed, meaning that this discussion would have probably gone another way if so it was.

Going back to Moegreche and Legendary's points, Moegreche said tecnically some are asking for the specifics as to how to be a knight, either directly or indirectly, no matter how you look at it, you are getting that information out, or at least trying, again, I don't mean to throw anyone under the bus when they don't have any bad intentions, but mmoving on:

*we* don't even know what these sufficient conditions are

Because there is no rule saying "if X user does X, he gets knighted, but if he does/doesn't/did X, then we revoque or evade the knighting of the user".
Mods and Admins are using their own personal judgment as to who is knighted, most of their thinking of course, is based on improving the website, meaning that most of their decisions on the matter and based on what some will call "productivity" but that in reality is just honest and clean participation.And of course, even if the person is not active anymore, the person at some point was worthy of a knighting, think of it as this:

A president avoided a terrorist attack 70 years ago for X thing he did, he got a statue on his honour to remember him after his death, then someone comes in and is like "Hey this guy is not here anymore, he's dead now, why does he have a statue!?Take that down and put something actually productive like a fabric or something!"

Some of you will probably react like this: "You are being too specific in Verwaltung's case".

What about this then?Look at it this way, instead of saying "This guy is not here anymore" let's assume that that president is still alive, but he is not on charge anymore, or rarely makes an appearence to take a decision for is country, and the other guy still backs up his point of taking the statue down, this time, saying: "He ain't doing nothing, why is he being conmemorated?!Take that down!".

You can't take the statue down, because it holds a meaning, same with knighting, it is the meaning of the decisions of the mods and admins, and this takes me to my second point, wich is Legendary's thinking about how we should start thinking more moraly, let's go back to the example I made.

Why does the guy want to take that statue so bad?Because he wants to replace it with a fabric?That's objectivly better, but then where is the morale meaning of the statue?Isn't the human mind known for having strong feelings from time to time?The answer is yes, and that statue is the proof, and the knighting of the users is the proof, and even the Knight's blessing is a proof itself.For what I think, Im pretty sure they try to implement both their personal thoughts, every other mod/admin's personal thought AND the objectivly better option for the improvement of the website, even if these three factors have contradictionary points.Please, if any mod or admin could confirm that this is the thoughts you use for choosing a knight, if it reveals something that you want to mantain as a secret because it would otherwise affect the system negativly, then you shall not do it.

Edit:

Knights are supposed to be "exemplary citizens", yet the average user has no way to know what about a person's behaviour is noteworthy enough to be awarded the title

I agree, but this could be fixed by just noting out what the user did to be knighted in the phrase below his armatar in his profile.

Im sorry if, by any chance, I offended anyone or mentioned any untrue statements, and if so, I apologize for it, and I will probably be corrected in case I missed a fact or made an incorrect one eventually.

P.S: I know I said that I would leave the conversation, but I have really strong thinkings as to what morale is concerned, so again, if I ever miss something or offend anyone, it happens to me a lot when I get into a discussion, this is your apology for when I do it, since I know I probably will at some point.

R2D21999
offline
R2D21999
18,314 posts
Templar

1) There is nothing wrong with the last quote

He still could have made his point without mentioning a user. The last two sentences also make it seem as if CourtJester shouldn't be a knight just because a few users hadn't heard of him.

2) both pang and Matt have already apologized for their behavior and anything that may come off aggressively.

I never said they didn't apologize.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,993 posts
Templar

He still could have made his point without mentioning a user. The last two sentences also make it seem as if CourtJester shouldn't be a knight just because a few users hadn't heard of him.

Yeah and they totally ignored my comment on page 41.
SirLegendary
online
SirLegendary
16,316 posts
Marquis

@MattEmAngel And I appealed to emotion because I wanted to stop this debate, it doesn't make sense to further it's discussion. You've made a lot of great points, and truly, some of them are being discussed without you guys knowing. Points have been made from all sides. I'm not sure what your objective is anymore because we've moved topics many times.

awsomejazz123
offline
awsomejazz123
350 posts
Bard

So...after you become a knight, after that can you then become a moderator?

Arm_Candy
offline
Arm_Candy
724 posts
Herald

So...after you become a knight, after that can you then become a moderator?

It has happened twice before, so it could happen again.

weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,305 posts
King

No it does not. I am using the actual definition of "Defamation" and it requires false information, which I am NOT using. I am using facts from his profile. If those facts reflect badly on him, then he is at fault, not I.

@MattEmAngel Lets just cut the chase. This line suggests you are talking about verwaltung, of which I already noted was not the cause of concern. Is this misdirection? Or are you talking about CourtJester?

You might not have said anything bad about him, but you did point him out, and gave reasons questioning his rank. I can only conclude that it was meant to change the opinions that are generally held about him.

What is the validity of this approach that you cannot otherwise conclude by means of neutral comparisons?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Stop thinking about this logically, think morally now, [...]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/cf/48/85/cf48857ed90c29b8fd0dbf0ff4c0df42.jpgDid you just...

Ultimately, the heart of this entire discussion is that these ideas seemingly contradict each other.
They shouldn't seem so, because they don't. "Noble" and "exemplary" are not exactly specific in their detail, so you wouldn't have any conflicting standards to address, even if it were more than flavour text.

While I understand the reasons why the administration would choose to not publicly reveal every decision that went into a knighting, what they also need to realize is that not saying anything at all robs the entire thing of necessary transparency.
Maybe if the OP just listed all the knights like this:

@Justin_X_Sample
Join Date: 01/12/2023
Date of Promotion: 06/28/2003
Major Contribution(s): 1 Inventing time travel. 2 Inventing time travel again.

This, at least, would give us a general idea of the admins' rationale without disclosing too much.

The objective is to fix the broken knighting system, because right now it doesn't make sense and the users aren't getting answers, and I want blessings and knights to be reconsidered in light of the qualifications I recommended to Zophia (pg 40).
I think he meant "What is the goal of continuing this discussion now that all the relevant points appear to have been made?", which is a good point, except that other people have more to say on this too.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,809 posts
Justiciar

Well, this discussion, even if it has to be made, seems to be bothering some people. Regardless of the reasons this happens, I have made my points. So, until something new comes up, I will stop if people who are pulled into this are annoyed.

What I don't want is this issue to die. Matt pointed it out perfectly. It is the special trait of the topics in this website. So if everyone leaves it, it is almost certain it won't be mentioned again.

SirLegendary
online
SirLegendary
16,316 posts
Marquis

@FishPreferred Trying to stop this before this pulls more people into it. Sorry. =)

SirLegendary
online
SirLegendary
16,316 posts
Marquis

If we don't, the AG team will ignore it and the problem will never get fixed. Several people have already explained this to you.

Haven't they told you that they are discussing it? I mean it's not like changing the system or un-knighting someone can be discussed in a day, maybe even a week.

Again, that's a good thing. This change affects the community. It's good that community members get involved and speak their mind before changes occur. Don't discourage people from participating, especially knights.

I'm not discouraging anyone, I'm trying to keep them away from people's words that may offend them. From the looks of it, a lot of this stuff is pretty offending, not that you can measure it with numbers, maybe with emotion. Again, sorry for appeal to emotion.

Showing 361-375 of 404