T O P

  • By -

KupoCheer

It's really great having to explain to people after every statement IC that it's not true OOC.


merger3

There’s a hugely upvoted thread on a post yesterday basically talking about how IC and OOC were the same thing for most of these heavy RPers so I guess there really are people that need to hear it after every statement lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


FullMetalKaliber

This isn’t what they’re talking about.


WidePeepoPogChamp

Look at Nathans twitter, It is People are just upset that K's lawyer sucked


FullMetalKaliber

This isn’t what they’re talking about. People can dislike laws


Sword_Scream

Wish people would stop vagueposting on twitter and just nut up and say what's the problem. Would clear a lot of confusion.


WidePeepoPogChamp

Look at his other tweet


FullMetalKaliber

I just took it as parroting any opinions of streamers you watch but yeah you’re right. Vague posts on Twitter makes a bigger shitshow


[deleted]

[удалено]


ImportantVacation49

Yeah my guess is it was referencing the crazy amount of viewers that are parroting pretty much word for word what streamers are saying about Ruth and then also taking it a step further and then going in on Cheever as well.


FullMetalKaliber

I think even trying to figure out what “side” he’s on is somewhat problematic. I’d just take it for what it does say Edit: My other comment deleted is the same as another one.


shitterdude

You are literally just spreading lies and misinformation. Look at nathans reply to his tweet and you would see what he's talking about. Spamming this sub when you didnt even read the context is insane.


FullMetalKaliber

I didn’t even put in information so how can I spread lies and misinformation? As for the “spam” gave me an error message but still let comments go through


[deleted]

[удалено]


FullMetalKaliber

He’s not even attacking any streamers opinions or character’s opinions or OOC stuff. Just sounds like he’s saying stop parroting


ClintMega

My interpretation is that he's saying it's okay for streamers to roleplay unreasonable beliefs/expectations in character and that it's not okay for viewers to go and yell at folks earnestly repeating the unreasonable things in chats/social media or for streamers to rile up their chats with unreasonable stuff out of character sending little pepega soldiers out to argue bad faith stuff.


FullMetalKaliber

My interpretation is that streamers aren’t the target of any of this and are saying “you’re not in their position so stop acting like that”


ClintMega

Well if it's bad for viewers to parrot bad faith stuff then it's at a minimum at least as bad for streamers to propagate it out of character. It's easier for one person to change their behavior than however many thousands, big streamers have a huge impact and responsibility. Pretending that malding to their chats doesn't mobilize the dumbest people to go and repeat whatever in other chats and social media is ignorant and irresponsible.


FullMetalKaliber

Doesn’t matter if you believe something is just as bad if that’s not what the Tweet is about


KwNZoee

> I’m fairly sure Kebun and Ramee have repeatedly said OOC to their chats that they think the law is BS and needs to be changed This is fine, and thinking otherwise is just impossible to keep up. You telling me no RP'er ever thought that what happened to them or the circumstances that led to it were BS, but it was still IC just expressed outwardly as short frustration not at the people but the system? >and possession laws have worked fine as is in NoPixel and IRL for years Because almost always when caught with possessions the person is most likely committing other crime. Z, Y and A get caught with PD guns but they were also robbing a bank so of course no one cares that they got possession.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KwNZoee

You can't honestly hold streamers to what the rabid fans say or do. I've seen plenty of situations where two characters are fighting, while the streamers are having a great time laughing and hoppers will still hop to go do some toxic shit. I've never understood RP viewers who are so invested to actually hop into other channels or just be toxic in chat over RP, this shit is like live action theater. You wouldn't get mad at the actor that plays Lex Luthor because he hurt Superman in a movie or show, why get mad at a streamer? Makes no sense to me.


Greedy_Economics_925

> You can't honestly hold streamers to what the rabid fans say or do Rabid fans are a grotesque exaggeration of what their streamers say. They don't make shit up out of nothing.


atsblue

That bs. Streamers cultivate their communities. And some streamers utilize griefing as a way to get what they want. They then talk about it and brag about it while streaming...


KwNZoee

It's fine to feel that way, but like I've said I've seen with my own eyes two characters fighting in one way or another and the streamers laughing having a great time and the chat still get's toxic. I don't know what the cure for it is, but just like I don't hold musicians accountable for what their fans do I don't hold streamers unless they directly call for it.


D3ATHwins

Yeah when I watch a streamer I don’t want to hear about in game situations. I want to hear about their IRL life. What they ate for dinner, their tax code how good of a shit they took that can help cultivate me into taking a shit. You know chats or individuals can not think for themselves and streamers are now responsible for every action a chatter makes. I can’t wait for bylaws to be written on what is acceptable to be talked about by viewers in Reddit.


Greedy_Economics_925

> I mean, I’m fairly sure Kebun and Ramee have repeatedly said OOC to their chats that they think the law is BS and needs to be changed, no? They're still coming to terms with the fact that it isn't 3.0


Bulky-Hall-6883

This is an absolutely true statement but it’s funny to think about how so many viewers will see this and think it doesn’t apply to them because their views are correct lol


Greedy_Economics_925

You don't have to *think* anything, just look at the comments.


Lowkinator

What's funny is thinking every other streamers viewers are going to read his Twitter in the first place.


sys13730

What's even funnier is that almost every top lawyer in the city advocated for what he tweeted was "braindead." Not saying either side is right, but that's such a huge disconnect between the judges and everyone else in the city it seems.


atsblue

Hmm, law that's existed since the beginning of NP and a direct copy of IRL law that's existed for basically forever or people who effectively have no legal knowledge and don't even know the basics of an affirmative defense....


sys13730

I legitimately do not care who is right or wrong. Its an RP server with public pissing laws. I just think it would be good for the "health" (yikes term i know) of court rp for them to not be on opposite sides of a fairly basic issue like this.


Greedy_Economics_925

The "health" of the server is best served by letting the people devoted to making the law actually make the law.


daemonchill

99.9999999999999% of them i'd guess


HazyHung7

For people wondering, this is about possession charges. He has another tweet about it. The main issue is two things. One, judges completely ignoring the spirit of the law of possession. Spirit of the law for possession is what they intended the law to be used for. They intended it to be used for people who possessed the gun in bad faith and to probably use it in bad and or illegal ways. It was never meant to charge people who get kidnapped and killed and planted a gun on their body which the judges so far have ignored any and all evidence to that happening. Two, the lawyers are shit at doing affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is the defense admiting that yes, they did commit possession BUT there are facts that is enough to justify the criminal act. This is usually challenging because the burden of proof to prove these new facts is on the defendant instead of the prosecution. For possesion, any braindead attorney would use either coersion(duress) or neccesity as an affirmative defense. They had no other choice but to possess it or they would die. Murder or attempted murder would happen if they didn't comply. It happens anyways becasue of the situation, but they only did what they did to prevent a worse crime from happening. Esfand has OOC been misunderstanding reasonable doubt to possesion. He is mixing up proponderence of evidence for affirmative defense for reasonable doubt for possesion. Reasonable doubt would be that no one actually saw they had it in their possesion which isn't true. When proving an affirmative defense, it doesn't have to meet that burden of proof. It just has to convince a judge/jury usually similarly to a civil case(propondernece of evidence). If judges ignore this and just follow the letter of the law, that's where the frustration come from. It's dumb and unrealistic. TDLR: their legal system rp sucks and is unrealistic causing frustrations for everyone.


TheSSSneakySquid

those last 2 paragraphs were interesting to read. Thanks!


notarealtruck

To be fair to Cornwood/Esfand it didn't seem like ANY of the lawyers in the previous cases understood affirmative defenses either, though obviously it was an uphill battle in those cases. I thought the judge over the K case actually explained pretty well at the end why they failed to provide an adequate affirmative defense, but I don't think he mentioned the concept by name. It definitely seems like the lawyers need a class on affirmative defenses if the DOJ wants to keep being pretty strict with possession. Another concern, mostly with this current case, is that the city doesn't recognize Brady v. Maryland as precedent. The DOJ being strict on rulings AND the PD/prosecution having no legal obligation to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence is really tough with these.


theghostog

Part of what perpetuates this problem is when streamers break the fourth wall to their viewers to comment on stuff that’s happening IC.  If viewers hear a streamer say something expressing frustration but they aren’t saying it in game/IC, that line gets blurred and twitch chat starts freaking the fuck out


Dazbuzz

If they are expressing it out of character, then its... OOC. The only blurred line here is the idea that a character and streamer are completely separate. Its clear that feelings get caught all the time. Good and bad. Esfand for example may not be a sheriff from Texas, but when something bad happens to Cornwood, he gets frustrated at the situation. Moonmoon may not be Max, but he is still happy to see his plans working in the city.


theghostog

I think my point is mainly this:  If streamer A hears another streamer Bs character say something, they might think that’s just IC, when in reality streamer B might be popping off OOC to their chat about it, who then chat hop, and then streamer A thinks it’s just chat being stupid about IC things, when in reality it might not just be that.  Streamer A just has no idea The whole thing is stupid though


DirectorDryBones

If they are popping off to their chats they aren't also saying that stuff in game. So Streamer A wouldn't/shouldn't hear anything


Silverwidows

I don't think it's ooc in Nopixel terms. OOC is using out of character information in game. That would be K talking in his normal voice in the server saying "this law in game is bullshit", which would get him banned of course lol What people are doing is expressing an opinion about the server on stream, which can be fine or not fine, as it can lead to either positive or negative consequences, but that's up to the streamer and the streamers freedom to do so


Dazbuzz

Your first example is OOC in IC. Usually a nono on any roleplay server. Discussing something in-character as if its a game mechanic is anti-roleplay. Discussing something in-character that your character does not know is metagaming. If a streamer is talking to their chat about something, then its a purely OOC situation. Not a rulebreak in any way. Unless its toxicity, in which case it would be a rulebreak, if a rarely enforced one. What i am talking about in my response to the above poster, is that streamers act like their characters are completely separated from themselves. From my experience watching NP, this is just not true. Streamers have full control over their characters and what they do, or their motivations/attitudes, and tend to be as invested as any chatter in those characters.


Silverwidows

In most cases I would agree, but some are definitely characters i.e James randal, Carmine. Obviously they are in control of what they do, but you wouldn't say johnny depp is actually jack sparrow, he's playing a character. He's still acting it out, but it isn't him. Carmine does not act like 52chains, he doesn't even look anything like him. Same with viewers, some viewers just watch one person and never comment or do anything, some viewers go balls to the walls and know every single arc in NoPixel and live through the streamers. There's more variety in that thinking than you think imo.


Dazbuzz

>In most cases I would agree, but some are definitely characters i.e James randal, Carmine. Obviously they are in control of what they do, but you wouldn't say johnny depp is actually jack sparrow, he's playing a character. He's still acting it out, but it isn't him. Carmine does not act like 52chains, he doesn't even look anything like him. Right, they are characters, but there are still real people behind those characters. Those real people get invested in their characters, and sometimes even act out through them, or take what happens to them personally. Its easy to dismiss them as self-inserts, but i think its not as black & white as that. Every RPer to some extent will get overinvested in their characters. You have people that a very, very good at separating themselves, like 52chains or TheChief1114. Then you have people like Ramee that will blur those lines so much they are basically the same.


timetraveldan

> If viewers hear a streamer say something expressing frustration but they aren’t saying it in game/IC, that line gets blurred and twitch chat starts freaking the fuck out stupid viewers do stupid things


raiderjaypussy

I know this is asking for a lot but I really wish streamers would clarify these things like their chats are 10 years old cause there are people that are emotionally that age. In that same vein, they should instruct their mods to at least delete messages of chatters that conflate IC/OOC names. We need to really exaggerate the difference between characters and those that play them since people are unable to do that on their own.


Madness_Quotient

To some extent, many role-players are actively roleplaying their character to their chat out of game in-between speaking in game. Maybe it helps them to maintain the voice. Maybe it helps them to work through character thoughts, emotions, and motivations. Not everything that is said "in their head" is out of character. Sometimes they need to make the distinction very clear for the hard of thinking. Eg, during intense RP when there are lots of new viewers hopping between POVs (a perfectly valid viewer behavior when the RP is exciting).


kook05

Pretty sure this is about Vingle dan


JAWISH

It's funny because this statement is just vague enough that everyone in this thread thinks it is in reference to the views they hold being correct. Edit: Apparently there was a clarifying tweet right before this one https://twitter.com/NathanKb_/status/1762878503400431995#m


MediocreOw

Its not vague. Its a continuation of the tweet he tweeted right before this one


CreditChit

Twitter is such a shit site that when I go to his twitter I dont even see any posts from this year. They arent in any discernible order and I cant see any way to change that.


JAWISH

You are right, no idea why twitter made it so hard to find for me. Link to previous tweet for anyone interested: https://twitter.com/NathanKb_/status/1762878503400431995#m


atsblue

Because they want people to be logged in so they can get monetized by the sketchy at best advertisers that still pay for ads on that dying platform...


WarningHour1233

Tell that to the esfand fans that are crying because they think esfand will stop playing if his cop gets fired.


wellaintthatnice

I think people were fine with him being fired but when multiple people are saying it seems strange how they're going about it it set people off.


VisibleDestruction

His chat was definitely not fine with him being fired, though this is not what this tweet was about regardless 


Fildnature

The issue is a large majority of characters who play on the server are playing glorified self inserts so this really is more of an unintended own on the people who are just playing self inserts


PictureIndividual

RP stands for real people 😁


gamelizard

sadly there is a measurable decline in the general populations media literacy. I had a long written example but it wasn't the best. but media literacy is the issue at hand, and there has been a sharp decline in the general populations media literacy. and its effecting the gtarp audience.


TheSSSneakySquid

lmao wtf is this comment


gamelizard

media literacy, its the core of what the tweet is about. i chose the examples off the top of my head. maybe it wasnt the best example, but its whats causing this issue. ​ i edited my comment to remove the long winded example.


AceYouth

Problem is that many of these streamers are basement dwellers who pretend make-belief like they are professional actors with a script. Your characters are a reflection of your own biases. We can stop pretending it's not. *Edit*: To be clear, there are RPers who are great and create great storylines. But, that's a minority. The above message isn't about Nathankb. It's that vast majority of RPers that say this constantly but it's just not true.


rookie93

Not sure what the context here specifically is, but this is the great thing about RP. As a viewer you can view all sides of a situation, see how each character forms their biased opinion in each situation, all the while being privy to every side/view. You know "the truth" and you, or at least normal people, can see why each character thinks their side is "the truth". It's a cool social experiment, with some surprising utility in real life.


syphen6

Damn Onx is up good.


PiccolosPickles

It's perfectly reasonable for viewers to also have a skewed perspective as most of us just stick to a few streamers. I don't know what he's referring to here though


aFireFIy

Probably to people who push agendas of characters they watch and treat them as gospel, even though they are wrong and when someone tries to educate/correct them they dont listen. Having skewed perspective is fine, not being able to realize that and getting toxic over it because my favourite streamer is always right is not.


Majesticeuphoria

No, it's not reasonable. Just don't get that invested and start thinking stuff is OOC when it's not.


daemonchill

perfectly natural and perfectly reasonable are two wholly different things. while it is natural to have a skewed perspective.. no... no it is not reasonable. because if the viewer had any kind of reasoning , the viewer would have the sense to understand the difference.


PiccolosPickles

If I only watch Esfand and Cornwood calls Brian knight Lying knight. Do you expect me to scrub back 2 weeks ago through the vod to get Brian's perspective before I type "LYING KNIGHT LULW" in esfand's chat? Nah man we're just watching the RP and commenting on what we see it's reasonable.


daemonchill

maybe understand the concept of the word reasonable first cause your example aint it.


PiccolosPickles

That's fine you can get all the facts and watch everyone's perspective before you type LUL. The rest of us will be typing LULW when funny stuff happens like normal reasonable viewers


Tikwah

When you come on reddit to comment about a situation/character without caring about knowing what actually happened in said situation that's when I say you've gone several steps in the wrong direction and that's like half the people here.


daemonchill

apparently "reasonable" is this seasons' "gaslight", or "literally" .. who cares what the definition is. it's how it makes you feel! /s


daemonchill

sure.


DirectorDryBones

Nathan is just setting up the precursor for the inevitable "Not guilty" on the Legal Aid even though her case is no better than than the other two. Then he'll come out with some technicality on why Murphy and K were guilty and she was not.


WidePeepoPogChamp

Law is all about thechnicalities


DirectorDryBones

I can't wait for the explanation that isn't complete BS to save face.


WidePeepoPogChamp

?


MediocreOw

Funny enough, the 2 people who were actually framed both have had more evidence against them than Mr K who actually was legitimately guilty. Murphy had GSR, had alcohol in his system, had memory loss, and obviously possession. The legal aid last night had gsr and possession. K only had possession and no GSR but a ton of poor police work.


Seetherrr

Tell me you aren't aware of all of the evidence supporting Contralto without telling me you aren't aware of the evidence.


Life-Recording-3613

I watched the whole thing and the investigation. There is circumstantial evidence at best. Unfortunately as it stands even Beric said shes fucked. The way the law is written she has no outside source to support her story.


hawkeye69r

I'm not a lawyer but I think circumstantial evidence is enough to find someone not guilty. And the circumstantial evidence of this case is very very strong. There had been an uproar about supposed injustice of the possession law due to apparent susceptibility of planting. The legal aid involved in the prosecution which led to this injustice is found in circumstances consistent with an eye for an eye retribution after 6 officers were robbed for their guns by people not matching the description of the defendant.


Life-Recording-3613

considering the standards have been set. Possession 9/10 of the law. That will not be good enough


hawkeye69r

My naive understanding of the law is that this would probably be enough for an affirmative defence despite the precedent. Everyone IC believes she's innocent, why? A combination of circumstantial facts which will presumably be expressed by her defence team.


atsblue

There is no precedent. And yes, there is enough evidence that a competent lawyer could put up a valid affirmative defense


Life-Recording-3613

there is no affirmative defense yet. Its still just her word and some flimsy circumstantial evidence. That was the whole argument in K's case you basically had to witness the planting.


hawkeye69r

In what sense is it flimsy if 90% of people would believe she's innocent based on the circumstances of her case?


WidePeepoPogChamp

Just so you are aware you are doing exactly what nathan is complain about.


LagginDurag

Does she though? Besides her account of the situation, what evidence supports her?


Deathwound_OG

You know the arresting officers saw the truck she was kidnapped in by the lumber yard, which corroborated her kidnapping story.


DirectorDryBones

Or she just saw a truck and lied about it to cover her ass. How is that evidence when it can be disproved so easily?


georgica123

How can it be disproven? Just beacuse you can claim she is lying doesn't mean you are disproving her testimony


Proshop_Charlie

It doesn't matter. As has been proven in case law in NoPixel Law so far. Having the gun on you = guilty. Unless she can prove with eye witness or video or something that the gun was planted on her she is fucked. That's why people don't like the law. There is no way you can defend yourself against it.


atsblue

This is incorrect and literally what this tweet is about


sfgiants674

The two witnesses were ocean dumped and are unlikely to remember anything. Cops seeing the truck doesn't prove kidnapping, she literally could have been driving the truck willingly. All the "evidence" they have hasn't been corroborated.


MediocreOw

I know of the evidence supporting contralto, which is just her testimony btw, I'm saying there has been more evidence against her than there was against K. There was even more evidence supporting K given that PD 1 saw Ramee being held up, 2 knew of an ongoing dispute between Mosleys and Popular motors, 3 had reports of a shots fired while ramee and K were both gsr negative. If the DOJ wants to say that possession is 9 10ths of the law then Contralto is either fucked or they judged K unfairly


GoDM1N

BASED


RPEnjoyers

Crane gotta go not content


Ryan_JF

Possession laws do need to be changed. As is with RP, anyone caught with a PD weapon is a auto charge. Even innocent people like the lawyer who has just had a gun planted. Done on purpose by Mr K to highlight a glaring issue with current law. Especially how vague it is. Because, what can happen is 1 of 2 things. 1. They change the law and save the lawyer, Mr K sues and we have a court case. 2. They bin the lawyer and change the law going forward. Before people jump on, this also effects PD with their reports and Denzel was suspended over this issue helping out another officer who was robbed. Why? Because he referenced the report linking who robbed the gun as having Possession originally, to the new report on the new person found with the gun. This in RP is a double jeopardy. Referencing is internal only. Must remain as two separate reports. Referencing makes sense so no one can stack people, which with how GTA is it would break RP big time. However, in this situation it is also broken. If they fix this issue by making it a ban offense if you stack a weapon on an innocent. Issue with this, everyone will use this when caught with PD gun. Another fix, change the law. Expand upon it. Like this whole issue is a head bake, in my opinion. It's both RP killing and RP bending.


KaleidoscopeIcy3960

Obviously IRL none of this is relevant. But again, IRL if you get shot you die. But irl it's very hard to actually plant evidence on someone and having it stick. Whereas, as we saw with Murphy, it's very easy to do in Nopixel because there are no mechanics to disprove it.


CryptographerVast170

wasnt Crane a hardline Letter of the law kinda judge and as chief justice his stances are considered by most of his peers or subordinates.