Reworking the Hylian Knights

[Emma]

The biggest problem with the Hylian Knight subforum right now is the lack of discussion. There isn't conversation about the current system and how it could he periodically adjusted to increase its efficiency nor is there discussion in nomination threads. A few days ago when I posted a thread about implementing rigid time frames for quarters, Locke, who I consider to be an informed member of the community, wasn't sure if the nomination system was running, quarterly, or both. As someone who's had the opportunity to look through nomination threads from 2012 to 2014, I was pleased to see there was extensive discussion in threads last year stimulating knights to truly think about potential candidates. Nowadays, discussion has mostly returned to simple yes or no replies. This is especially perplexing now that there is more time to discuss nominees.

Paralleling the staff, I believe the current knights truly do want to be a positive influence on the forums, but past experiences with knights who abused the system continue to haunt the forums. I believe that a simple rebranding of the usergroup will not solve these problems. In the grand scheme of things the Hylian Knights are honorary so it doesn't make a large difference whether or not they are kept. Perhaps to make people more comfortable talking in the section, more casual conversation threads should be posted now posted now. Many of the old HK threads were talks ranging from personal life to forum chatter. Returning to the usergroup's roots and creating a more private enclosure to turn to, as Matt has suggested, could perhaps be the spark that the subforum requires.

If the rank Is removed, I continue to believe that everyone will continue to post as before and continue to strive for improvement despite the lack of a visible reward. Improvement in and of itself is very rewarding.

Given how my proposal removes the voting system entirely, it necessitates the need to have other discussion topics. As I have said, my idea is for it to be a safe haven to talk about personal life, or anything, that people feel shy about. Especially things that are making uncomfortable and that they want help with, but that they fear, say, someone like family or friends, from being able to easily find on the internet. A layer of privacy would help. It is my hope with the goal of the new incarnation of the knights, whatever we're going to call it, being dedicated to being a positive force will help people feel safer talking about what they need to talk about in there. A good example, and why I quoted this entire post, is how former knight was very cruel to people who were suffering from depression and told them some very, very nasty things that were hurtful. With the lack of any voting system, and entry being done on request, the moderators will be able to directly take responsibility for anyone who commits an action like that and there'd be no ambiguity on what to do. The helpful attitude will make people feel safer to discuss such life problems, and the staff won't have any difficulty deciding what to do on people who cruely taunt people talking about things like depression.

It's just the general sense I have right now of where I'd like to take it.

 

[Wolf Sage]

[...] It is my hope with the goal of the new incarnation of the knights, whatever we're going to call it, being dedicated to being a positive force will help people feel safer talking about what they need to talk about in there. A good example, and why I quoted this entire post, is how former knight was very cruel to people who were suffering from depression and told them some very, very nasty things that were hurtful. With the lack of any voting system, and entry being done on request, the moderators will be able to directly take responsibility for anyone who commits an action like that and there'd be no ambiguity on what to do. The helpful attitude will make people feel safer to discuss such life problems, and the staff won't have any difficulty deciding what to do on people who cruely taunt people talking about things like depression.

It's just the general sense I have right now of where I'd like to take it.

One unwritten quality about the knights--as in, not a requirement or whatever--that I've noticed is their tendency to give really good advice in various areas of the forums, life, or in general. Like seriously, there's a few things that even I took from their advice. I haven't been keeping tabs on the goings-on around here, so I know very little of what has been discussed in regards to there being "new knights" or w/e, but I hope that the new system puts more emphasis on helping, "adopting new members," and giving advice, kind of like what you just [unintentionally?] touched upon.

 

[Seth]

Everyone should strive to be helpful and kind, and for those that are they don't need a rank or group to reward them for it.

 

[Emma]

Everyone should strive to be helpful and kind, and for those that are they don't need a rank or group to reward them for it.

It won't be an reward though. that's the point. Any sort of voting will be gone and people will be in it because they want to, with the goal of working together. Rewards won't be relevant at all.

 

[Wolf Sage]

Everyone should strive to be helpful and kind, and for those that are they don't need a rank or group to reward them for it.

Not sure if that was directed at me or whatever, but all I was saying is that being super helpful and giving advice should be added to decision-making in the nomination process for you guys' future HK system or whatever.

 

[Onilink89]

The biggest problem with the Hylian Knight subforum right now is the lack of discussion. There isn't conversation about the current system and how it could he periodically adjusted to increase its efficiency nor is there discussion in nomination threads. A few days ago when I posted a thread about implementing rigid time frames for quarters, Locke, who I consider to be an informed member of the community, wasn't sure if the nomination system was running, quarterly, or both. As someone who's had the opportunity to look through nomination threads from 2012 to 2014, I was pleased to see there was extensive discussion in threads last year stimulating knights to truly think about potential candidates. Nowadays, discussion has mostly returned to simple yes or no replies. This is especially perplexing now that there is more time to discuss nominees.

Wait wait wait....

Look i agree that the HK has a tainted reputation and causing some sort of unnecessary conflict. But are you telling me that the whole proposal of removing the HK was just a personal initiative within the staff and on top of, that justified it with by letting the members vote? While there wasn't any big issue at all that required a radical solution as a Purge or Removal this time? And basicly that the staff triggered this discussion, which caused unnecessary drama to the whole forum?
If this is really the case, i have lost all respect to the person/people who did this. This is not the democracy-system you are trying to achieve here, if thats your intention at least. There is a more fitting word for that and its called propagenda. Really, removing it witout voting and ignoring protests would have been more subtle IMO.

The subforum doesn't need to be active, this isnt a requirement. The members need to be active. Its just there as an extra as a exclusive lounge, which at the same time was convenient for voting and discussing things. If the voting was dead within the HK, surely there was a better solution then this? Like letting the normal members vote as the same fashion as key awards. Or let the staff themselfs vote.

 

[A Link In Time]

Wait wait wait....

Look i agree that the HK has a tainted reputation and causing some sort of unnecessary conflict. But are you telling me that the whole proposal of removing the HK was just a personal initiative within the staff and on top of, that justified it with by letting the members vote? While there wasn't any big issue at all that required a radical solution as a Purge or Removal this time? And basicly that the staff triggered this discussion, which caused unnecessary drama to the whole forum?
If this is really the case, i have lost all respect to the person/people who did this. This is not the democracy-system you are trying to achieve here, if thats your intention at least. There is a more fitting word for that and its called propagenda. Really, removing it witout voting and ignoring protests would have been more subtle IMO.

The subforum doesn't need to be active, this isnt a requirement. The members need to be active. Its just there as an extra as a exclusive lounge, which at the same time was convenient for voting and discussing things. If the voting was dead within the HK, surely there was a better solution then this? Like letting the normal members vote as the same fashion as key awards. Or let the staff themselfs vote.

Oni, I never suggested that anything was set-up. All I'm saying is that there isn't much discussion in the subforum currently, and I personally would like to see explanations for votes in nomination threads rather than yes or no responses.

 

[Onilink89]

Oni, I never suggested that anything was set-up. All I'm saying is that there isn't much discussion in the subforum currently, and I personally would like to see explanations for votes in nomination threads rather than yes or no responses.

I would rather see that too. But be completely honest with me. What exactly caused or triggered for the removal or purge of HK this time. I mean we have come this far at least, its not like im saying to revert the whole thing. Even though i disliked the method of doing this.

 

[Jamie]

Following the HK poll, a lot of discussion happened between the staff due to the fact that so many people took issue with the existence of the HKs. Many of us thought it was a good idea to rework them. So yes, it was partially a staff decision, but a decision that came as a result of user opinions.

 

[Justac00lguy]

While I don't agree with their opinion, I don't see a way around it. That's why in my proposal I don't want there to be any barriers to entry in the group that I wish to transition the knights into. And for their focus to be on actively helping people and proving their sincerity through actions rather than by a collective approval of a vote the community had no part in. So I believe my idea addresses the concern you are talking about here. If we make clans, I don't think it's appropriate for you (as in the staff as a whole) to say that the HKs cannot transition into a new purpose and existence as a clan. To do otherwise would be unfair. Given the open nature I'm proposing, no one would have to be in it if they didn't want to, and anyone that could join would be able to. It'd be wrong to say people shouldn't be allowed to do it when it is supposed to be their choice. It contradicts the criticism's currently being used against the knights as my proposal specifically eliminates those concerns while not singling out any knights for punishment. A mass demotion can only be viewed as a punishment, and a failure to be readmitted after that demotion would only be seen as an act of censorship. And the whole idea has not been described anyway so I don't understand why it'd fix any problems without that explanation.

I'll address some of the things said here, but first I want to ask you a question. Is you advocating to keep the Knights helping the community? Or is it helping the Knights?

Anyway, what exactly is your proposal about clans, do you want some sort of HK clan? Because I'm all for the idea of clans, and awlays have, check my posts in the clan thread from a few months ago. However, I'm not for a HK clan as I feel that just defeats the purpose of he transition.

 

[Garo]

After the previous poll, it was clear that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the HK system as it stood then, and a number of members - but not all - felt that the entire concept of HK was inherently flawed. At the end of the poll the staff convened and talked about what actions to take. Given that the HKs had just instituted a new system of nominations that had not had time to take effect when the poll launched, the staff decided to let the first quarter of that new system play out and see if it improved the process of electing HKs and potentially addressed concerns about the concept, and then reassess the situation. That quarter has now elapsed, and several new Knights were promoted. This is the follow up of that decision: reassessing popular opinion about the HKs and proposing further action.

The majority of the staff are hesitant to immediately outright remove a system that can be improved, which is why the rank was not immediately and outright eradicated at the closure of the previous poll. This discussion is primarily one to address alternative systems to the current system while still maintaining the concept of HK. As before, removal of the HK rank is not off the table, but it is considered by many of the staff to be a last resort should the system's flaws and concerns prove insurmountable.

 

[Justac00lguy]

Oni, I never suggested that anything was set-up. All I'm saying is that there isn't much discussion in the subforum currently, and I personally would like to see explanations for votes in nomination threads rather than yes or no responses.

There actually was detailed discussion during the 2013 system, obviously we all know that particular system failed.

 

[Onilink89]

Following the HK poll, a lot of discussion happened between the staff due to the fact that so many people took issue with the existence of the HKs. Many of us thought it was a good idea to rework them. So yes, it was partially a staff decision, but a decision that came as a result of user opinions.

Partially would be an understatement, at least say "mostly". And like i said, normal members should not have a saying in this subject to begin with. So please stop using the members to justify this decision already. If there was no issue, i can't help to see that these "many people" you talk about just have a personal dislike towards ranks. So if the members were bothered by the mere existence of the HN or the current staff, would you make a poll for removal about that too? I gave this example before.

I asked to be "completely" honest with me Rep.

 

[Seth]

As for us lowly "normal" members, it's our community as well. If that staff thinks we should have say, then we do.

 

[Emma]

Wait wait wait....

Look i agree that the HK has a tainted reputation and causing some sort of unnecessary conflict. But are you telling me that the whole proposal of removing the HK was just a personal initiative within the staff and on top of, that justified it with by letting the members vote? While there wasn't any big issue at all that required a radical solution as a Purge or Removal this time? And basicly that the staff triggered this discussion, which caused unnecessary drama to the whole forum?

I do think that the staff unnecessarily escalated this issue. By repeatedly insisting that the old knights had to be demoted it reinforced existing feelings of resentment and anger that were, at the time, fading. I do not believe they, the staff, should be complaining about the drama in this incident because they invited it by making this issue public, knowing how heated and passonate people's opinions on the matter were and they should have expected this to get intense.

If this is really the case, i have lost all respect to the person/people who did this. This is not the democracy-system you are trying to achieve here, if thats your intention at least. There is a more fitting word for that and its called propagenda. Really, removing it witout voting and ignoring protests would have been more subtle IMO.

I am inclined to agree that democracy didn't have any place here. HKs were being excluded. The assertion by the staff was that the issue could not be resolved with so many HKs in the discussion, this was the rationale described to us for the reason for the demotion. There can be no other conclusion than that the staff did not want certain current HKs to participate in discussions about the fate of the HKs. If this is not the case, then I would like an explantion for statements like this:

The truth is, we have ideas for the Hylian Knights that we would like to share with the "New" Hylian Knights we pick when we go through the rebuilding process. We also plan on getting the opinion of these "New" Knights and reworking the system with their help. Some of us believe that these ideas cannot be feasibly implemented in a timely fashion without resetting everything and doing something "executive". Not every single HK will be re-promoted, they will all be taken on a case by case basis just like the rest of the community. There are other reasons as well, but this is the main reason for me. I, and others, think it is too difficult to make all of the changes we think need to happen without reworking the entire thing.

The intent here here is very obvious in that the staff (as it has been reiterated time and again that this is a group decision and not one individual) wishes to include knights in the discussion but also to exclude some of them that they think should not be participating. How else can you explain what was said here? And how else to explain the "need" to demote people? If they should all be included, there is no reason to demote any of them. Feeling that it would "take too long" with the number of people is not a justifiable reason to demote anyone from anything as it is extremely unfair to them and it is not how such authority ought to be utilized. If that was really the reason, then it makes absolutely no sense why you all decided to make this a public issue because that includes more people, not less. Reiterating my assertion, to which I've been falsely accused of wrongdoing by the staff for pointing out, that the demotion idea has an irrational rationale for that does not conform to the reasoning we have been given to justify it.

I do not think it is out of line for me to point out how this clearly can't be seen as supporting a democratic process if reasons are being given for why some people shouldn't be included in the discussion.

I'll address some of the things said here, but first I want to ask you a question. Is you advocating to keep the Knights helping the community? Or is it helping the Knights?

Considering that I'm advocating for free expression as opposed to suppressing anything that displeases anyone, I think I am supporting the community. That is what is is. The argument for killing the knights ultimately boils down to people simply not liking what they feel it represents. I don't believe that anyone's personal feelings gives them the right to tell others what they can and cannot do and no degree of magnitude of numbers of people can ever make that ethical.

Anyway, what exactly is your proposal about clans, do you want some sort of HK clan? Because I'm all for the idea of clans, and awlays have, check my posts in the clan thread from a few months ago. However, I'm not for a HK clan as I feel that just defeats the purpose of he transition.

I have stated this many, many, MANY times and I really, truly wish you'd stop asking me to repeat it. It makes it look like you are ignoring me and demanding the exact same explanation to be stated again. My proposal can be found in this thread at post number 88, repeated in post 57 of the Clans thread. Please, stop asking me to explain again why my idea for clans is and how the knights would transition into as I've already explained it several times. What we need are more ideas on the various mechanics of the system and for what kind of clans to have. Like I have already stated, I don't think any individual person's personal disapproval of the existence if the knights, in any form, is reason enough to justify blocking them from existing in the new clan system. If people don't like what it would become there, they don't have to have anything to do with it and the idea is to have multiple options. And then the members of the new incarnation of the knights, whatever its name will be, will prove their sincerity through their actions and not by anyone voting them or by any hearsay that people want to take as fact like they're doing now.