'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.
Knights are real people, singling any one of them out and scrutinizing what they do (especially if they haven't done anything wrong), is a complete defamation. Don't think for one second I would allow that for any users on this site. If you have to prove a point about inactive knights you can use them as a whole without pointing any single individual out.
But we are not pointing any single individual out. The users here are unhappy with the knighthood system as a whole. We just used Verwaltung'a case which is the latest to prove our point and we didn't even say anything bad about him. All we said about him is that he is and always was inactive while we believe that activity, past or present is a requirement for knighthood.
I was making a general post directed to everyone, to avoid singling out individuals. Its unhealthy and unnecessary.
To shed a little light on defamation... yes it fits the bill exactly, while a user is singled out simply for being a knight then is scrutinized, is the action of damaging the good reputation of someone.
This business with verwaltung has allowed for leniency concerning him personally, and is not to be used as smoke and mirror to single out other users.
So while the hooplah over what's his face is going on is anyone going to explain why sirlegendary was knighted?
I imagine the answer is going to involve his forum activity? Fine and dandy given me a month and I'll spam forum games too.
-pangtongshu page 31 post 6.
Surely this is a joke, no?
-pangtongshu page 32 post 3. He's replying to "king of count to 100"
One of the earlier ones was CourtJester, who never made an appearance in the Knight thread (I think he's a CTC builder who spends all his time in that thread/area). I had never heard of him. Neither had several other people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
