'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.
See, Matt? See what you've done? He obviously knew you'd have it out for him, and high-tailed it when no one was looking. He's probably off at Kong now, wearing a false beard and sunglasses and calling himself Walter VonVern. This is why we can't have nice things, Matt.
What he has been doing presently(which is now the past as he's currently out of commission) is of no importance when it comes to this kind of stuff. Life can get in the way and sometimes it can completely be taken by surprise. Perhaps he had troubles with a girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever and has been having depression because of it. Perhaps that he could have been arrested. Or maybe he even died.
Not trying to paint a morbid picture but life can be ruthless sometimes... freaking exams...
That's all I have to say about this whole ordeal. I'm having mixed emotions about the whole thing, so I have nothing to really rant about that isn't very clear to me.
Some of you have really been pulling out the pitchforks and the torches, which is really unnecessary. I'll discuss with the moderators all the reasonable thoughts presented here, and ask that snide remarks or belligerent attitudes be kept in check. Certainly that's not a honorable (or Knightly) way of presenting concern, and it's not the correct way of getting attention.
Maybe we are reading things differently, but while some of us have been a bit upset in this thread, I'd -hardly- say we were to the point of belligerence. ;/
were trying so hard to argue against the authority.
Because the authority has been making questionable decisions with the whole "knight" thing (which, ironically, was a questionable decision in itself) and, frankly, if the authority has gotten to the point where they can't even be questioned, then something has gone horrifically wrong.
Given that he was knighted 2 weeks after he stopped showing up you'd think it'd at least be a factor.
Deciding who to knight doesn't exactly happen over night. And keep in mind it still said 1 week the day he was knighted.
No, I'm saying it is important and he shouldn't be a knight, because you shouldn't promote/honor an individual for doing a job just because someone should be doing that job and he did it a few times.
You're basically treating this as if ArmorGames is some kind of job and that the users are the employees. His job title was never 'The Official Rater of ArmorGames'. He's not being paid to do this.
Because he has been here for less than two months and has already taken two weeks off.
It said 1 week the day he was knighted. You even pointed that out a few pages back.
You get Knighted because you are still doing it.
@Ernie15 hasn't been here for so long his time stamp isn't even showing. He hasn't been doing what he's been knighted for. In fact more than half of the knights were knighted for being staff members, they're no longer staff members and yet they're knights.
R2 has a point, people were knighted for what they did not because of what they are doing or will do. To add to that, they have always kept the reasons for people being knighted so broad that there will never be a specific reason for it, thus the reason why some knights don't have that many posts/comments/merits. Now I'm not trying to start a debate from what I said, just trying to enforce R2's point which also made things a lot clearer for me.
R2 has a point, people were knighted for what they did not because of what they are doing or will do. To add to that, they have always kept the reasons for people being knighted so broad that there will never be a specific reason for it, thus the reason why some knights don't have that many posts/comments/merits.
All these points do is point out how severely flawed the knighting system is..not defend it.
When Ernie was made knight, he was active and had been doing as he had been for quite some time. Granted, he is now an inactive knight and while I don't feel great about it, it is far better than a knight being made -after- they had already become inactive (note: knights knighted for being ex mods are a different case, for obvious reasons).
And as Matt pointed out, as things have progressed knighthood has turned into a glorified merit/blessing with unnecessary added benefits. At this point in time, being a knight either means you were an mod for the site at one point, or you are just a glorified beta tester.
Okay let me just try to defend what I had said earlier.
- Reasons for knighting were always broad, meaning having a high stats was never always a reason to knight someone. Meaning Verwaltung's stats don't matter.
- Knighthood, rewarded for major contributions in the past because we(users and admins) don't know what people will do, and we(users and admins) will still judge what they are doing.
- if you think about it this way, if a soldier dies fighting for his country, it's still possible to honor him for what he did. If a user becomes inactive, why is it wrong to knight him if his past doings still exist? Look at it at that perspective, not saying it's the only way to look at it though, and I understand all your perspectives.
The system will always have flaws, let's face it. Certainty in who gets knighted was never a thing. You could predict it, but never know for sure because the reasons why users are knighted are left pretty vague, hence my point.
Please look at my post only as another point of view or to further defend my own argument, and not to counter argue anyone's arguments.
I still vote for pangtongshu to be Knighted, only because i remember him from 2 years ago, and he is still as active as he was back then. The rest of you? i don't remember you at all. None of you made much impresion on me except @Pangtongshu and @Ferret c: Those 2 are the best
Now we've come to an even more serious problem, as has been hinted at in this thread. I have been assuming that knighthood is The promotion of an outstanding member who has been and is active in dough something particularly well. As I understand it from your statements, knighthood is just s stamp on someone who did something at least once whenever it was.
Yes, like any good figurehead title ought to be.
- Knighthood, rewarded for major contributions in the past because we(users and admins) don't know what people will do, and we(users and admins) will still judge what they are doing.
That's the issue here. His contributions are high-quality, but relatively little as of yet. For longtime users, it's a bit like giving an enviable position with double salary and light workload to a newly-hired intern instead of the people who have been loyal to the firm for years, just because he did such spectacular work in his first few weeks on the job.
According to the title, Knights "are the elite of Armor Games." Present tense, not past. They are also "noble contributors and exemplary citizens." The description does not say they "were" contributors and citizens. Considering your stats display how much time you spend on AG and what you are doing while you are here, they do matter. Someone who does not spend much time here and does hardly anything is not an exemplary citizen.
I think you may be reading too much into the flavour text here.
.
.
. Some things I hope we can all agree on:
1 Verwaltung's promotion was premature to at least some extent.
2 The contributions that he has made are worthy of recognition.
3 The admin/mods cannot, in all fairness, redact a promotion solely due to its being issued prematurely or with less-than-ideal judgement.
4 Nothing will be achieved by further quarreling over this.
5 The most satisfactory conclusion for all parties is that more thorough deliberation is given to the promotion of future Knights and Verwaltung's case be made the exception to the rule.
@MattEmAngel , sorry but no one had the idea of making a quest and naming it "Knight's blessing" for the sole purpose of setting a difference between general outstanding contributors and people who offered the site a lot in the past (this quest is a recent thing). As you may have noticed, The "Knight's blessing" is left intentionally vague. Though giving it to a member for a single outstanding contribution in the past makes sense, I believe the reason you are thinking this way is because most "Knight's blessings" were handed out in this matter.
However, if you look at it closely, there is nothing here specifically stating the difference between the two.
Also, an award can be given for continued outstanding services too.
Though I do agree on the doubts about Verwaltung's promotion, I am just trying to set some facts straight here.
Besides, even if you look at it this way, knight's blessing wasn't even a thing before, what? March 2015? The past mods were already rewarded with knighthood as were past admins. So what was going to happen? Even though Mods and admins have the power to award the blessing, don't forget it is given solely by knights!
