The Future of the Hylian Knight Usergroup

[TheBlueReptile]

Um... no? I had JUST explained exactly why everything was untrue previously. I was not going to go about restating it, these posts are already way too long. So it was absolutely not the case that I just said "you're misinformed" and left it at that. I'll go ahead and say I'm displeased at this dirty tactic of... well... blatantly lying about just happened to try to invalidate what I said. I did not just use "misinformed. I stated that I explained what was really going on, which I did.

I'm not trying to invalidate your argument, in fact I'm quite glad someone is discussing the opposing argument at length as it was beginning to feel one-sided. I just didn't see much within the post I replied to that was attempting to validate your claim that the opposition is misinformed. If you think otherwise, then I apologise that I was unable to see it, but you only seemed to briefly skim over the idea that Ventus had spread lies about the rank. There wasn't enough validation going on in there to then justify the claim that "the majority of [users arguing against the HKs] are badly misinformed and are, at best, just unsettled by the concept of the HKs"

Absolutely yes it shouldn't go by pure numbers. Especially with the fear factor in this poll. It really, really should have been private. There's a reason why voting for public government officies, laws, etc. is private. And it's this. The fear factor of what people will think of you if you don't share their opinion and they show themselves to be very intolerant of different opinions on the subjects.

Again, I'm not seeing the fear factor you're picking up on. The majority of discussion I've seen has stayed civil and, if there has been a fear factor, I've only observed it in any substantial amount by those who claim that users against the HKs just feel left out. Repentance even made a post to express displeasure that there wasn't much activity going on in the discussion.
"I'm kind of disappointed that only 31 people have voted and considerably less have posted their opinions here."

I don't think having a private vote on the matter of keeping/removing the HK's would have gone down well with this community either. There's already claims that the rank is nothing more than an exclusive club and a private vote would have done nothing to heal that misconception now would it? The Hylian Knights are a rank designed to help the community, so if the community at large doesn't believe them to be beneficial then it would be paradoxical to leave them active, even if the reasons behind people's distaste to the knights weren't substantial. I would understand the need for a private vote if the HK's had any real behind-the-scenes impact, but their apparent role is to inspire other members through their normal activity.

 

[Justac00lguy]

I know a lot of you guys feel the actual concept is flawed and I fully understand and accept that argument; however I just want to ask a question for the sake of the discussion and the rank moving forward (if it does stay that is).

Now I wasn't active when Knights were getting promoted every month, so I'll need some outside views to help me on this, but do you think the reason why this backlash is happening more so than ever now is due to the fact that HK seems so exclusive? I say that word with good reason because it relates to a lot of the complaints here about the rank itself being an elitist group. I get that a lot of you guys may have had this view of the rank before, but do you think it's heightened due to the fact that now the HK rank looks more exclusive than ever?

I think I really understand, from speaking to people (my friends on the forum) about the rank and how it can be viewed. We have a secret section where we discuss and dissect members, but rarely ever promote any. I mean two promotions in a year and a half certainly makes it seem like we're too good to have any more members, or that we're too lazy to do anything about it. I know some may never come to like the rank, but do you think, if the rank deviated away from this concept of "exclusiveness", it would be less controversial?

---

Overall, if we do stay, I'd really like to make the rank communicate more with the community and make their views be heard. My ideal scenario would be to separate the rank away from exclusiveness to something more community friendly and I think this begins with changing the definition of the rank itself.

 

[Mamono101]

I just want to point out that I am still undecided on this issue. Whilst I would love to give this new system a chance to be put into action, I still don't really know how I feel about keeping or getting rid of the HKs altogether.

My ideal scenario would be to separate the rank away from exclusiveness to something more community friendly and I think this begins with changing the definition of the rank itself.

This is very similar to what I brought up when I posted my thoughts on this issue:

...perhaps the question of "what is the purpose of the HK rank?" should have been addressed first rather than jumping straight to "should we get rid of it?". Perhaps if the parameters of their purpose for the forum was redefined, and as Azure suggests, the selection process made within the public eye, it wouldn't feel like some sort of secret society to some users.

Do you think the reason why this backlash is happening more so than ever now is due to the fact that HK seems so exclusive?
Do you think it's heightened due to the fact that now the HK rank looks more exclusive than ever?

I think the short answer to these questions is yes. I've never looked at the rank as exclusive. Rather, it was something to recognise users whose contributions to discussions and general forum goings on exceeded that of a normal user. Though as it currently stands, if no one is able to obtain the rank, then it is by definition exclusive to those who already have it. Exclusivity does not equal elitism though. The HKs that I have had dealings with in the past did not come across as elitists in any way at all.

Do you think, if the rank deviated away from this concept of "exclusiveness", it would be less controversial?

I think the answer to this is a resounding yes. I think something like a list of people up for nomination should at least be made available to us so we know who's in the running. Maybe there was a reason to keep this private but I can't really think of one. I also feel that the nominations should come from the community and then be decided upon by the Knights, who get final say on the matter. More communication is always a better start to improving on anything.

 

[Jamie]

Promoting a bunch of people doesn't make it less exclusive. It's exclusive because you can enter the hk forums and I can't. In that same way, event staff is also exclusive. But we actually do something concrete so it's a totally different thing.

 

[A Link In Time]

This is a friendly reminder that the poll closes in just over two days.

 

[Locke]

The "What is the purpose of the HK rank?" question has been discussed to death, and unanimously (from what I've seen) answered as identifying role models. The problem is that it doesn't seem to do that.

However, "superiority" doesn't enter into it either. The idea that HKs view themselves as superior to other members is completely false. In fact, a number of HKs have stepped down because they were tired of being viewed that way.

So if the rank stays, its task moving forward is not one of redefinition, but of changing perceptions.

 

[Emma]

The "What is the purpose of the HK rank?" question has been discussed to death, and unanimously (from what I've seen) answered as identifying role models. The problem is that it doesn't seem to do that.

However, "superiority" doesn't enter into it either. The idea that HKs view themselves as superior to other members is completely false. In fact, a number of HKs have stepped down because they were tired of being viewed that way.

So if the rank stays, its task moving forward is not one of redefinition, but of changing perceptions.

It absolutely was true in the past. We had a lot of knights who were very smugly superior about that, and a lot of other things. Walked around as if they were gods. But these people are not knights anymore. And most of them are not even active at all anymore. I think, a lot of the perception about this, comes from memories of those people. But it certainly is not the case with the people in there now. They are nothing like that.

 

[Jamie]

Do you not fear at all that the Knights may end up going back to how they were? That would be my biggest fear. I'm also a little worried about the demotion system. Has anyone aside from Ventus ever been demoted for just being a bad Knight, as opposed to inactivity?

 

[ケンジ]

Lose it.

It's time for something new and meaningful. Acknowledge people by their acts alone without titles as rewards.

 

[Justac00lguy]

The "What is the purpose of the HK rank?" question has been discussed to death, and unanimously (from what I've seen) answered as identifying role models. The problem is that it doesn't seem to do that.

However, "superiority" doesn't enter into it either. The idea that HKs view themselves as superior to other members is completely false. In fact, a number of HKs have stepped down because they were tired of being viewed that way.

So if the rank stays, its task moving forward is not one of redefinition, but of changing perceptions.

Do you think this perception will ever go though? Yes we may change how we work, more activity, better management, more productive promotions/demotions, but that honestly will not change the majority of opinions held.

---
If the rank is to stay, I think we should deviate away from exclusivity and get the community involved. How? Well that can be discussed in the future possibly. We can't go backwards though, a lot of people in here (I'm talking the actual posts not the votes) have gave valid reasons for why the rank should go and if it is to stay then we need to acknowledge their concerns.

 

[Ganondork]

Do you not fear at all that the Knights may end up going back to how they were? That would be my biggest fear. I'm also a little worried about the demotion system. Has anyone aside from Ventus ever been demoted for just being a bad Knight, as opposed to inactivity?

Suwako was demoted. I stepped down for being an ***, but I am pretty sure a demotion thread would have followed had I not done so.

 

[Doc]

From my understanding, the HKs are simply role models for other members of ZD to follow. They are what we are supposed to strive for. I have never personally seen a HK be an elitist nor seen the group as exclusive. I just knew them as the stronger and more involved posters. And many of the HKs that I see posting do deserve the rank; they are role models on the forum. However, I feel that there is no need to give these people ranks. I can recognize the role models based on their posts.

It's not like without the rank, people will think that Josh PowerZ is a role model and we should all copy that style of posting. The existence of the HK group has caused mostly issues for the forum, and if its only purpose is to tell us these people are role models, then why keep it? If having the group makes some members unhappy there is no need to keep it around. It is not vital to ZD, so its removal won't damage the forum.

Perhaps there can be another system in place to recognize ideal members, but the HK group doesn't seem like the way to go.

 

[Fig]

Do you not fear at all that the Knights may end up going back to how they were? That would be my biggest fear. I'm also a little worried about the demotion system. Has anyone aside from Ventus ever been demoted for just being a bad Knight, as opposed to inactivity?

I'm sure there were others before I joined that were demoted for bad behavior. That said, should the Knights stay we will easily set up a demotion thread should a Knight not follow the guidelines of the rank.

 

[Lord Vain]

Do you not fear at all that the Knights may end up going back to how they were? That would be my biggest fear. I'm also a little worried about the demotion system. Has anyone aside from Ventus ever been demoted for just being a bad Knight, as opposed to inactivity?

I know of at least one who was forced to step-down myself, that being Sullivan, or so I was told anyways.Ven though? Chances are he would have been forced, but he stepped down before that could happen.

 

[Vanessa28]

In the case of Ventus Vainy is right. Ventus was showing very bad behavior and he was one of those who -as a knight himself- started to make the Knights look bad. He complained endlessly about the system and expressed his frustration and started to make things up. Unfortunately people are like sheep so of course a crowd followed him and were convinced what he said was true without even knowing what went on. Ventus was about to be demoted but he stepped down a bit before it would happen. Hero of Time was demoted of bad behavior and several members in the past were demoted too. When a knight misbehaves they will be demoted. I have to agree with Locke. The image of the Knights being superior to others is absolutely false. In the past several people have viewed it as a popularity contest. Who was friended with the staff got the rank and was voted in. If that's true I can't say because that was before my time. But I can tell you this is no longer the case at all. The current knights are far from acting superior and do care about how the members view them. That's why members like Matt and Justa and Thareous have been working on this new system. Especially Matt has been working very hard on it for years now. Hammering how the former system was wrong and would feed the popularity idea to regular members. I think this shows how dedicated some knights are.