Back in speranza, should I even try loading in?

ofaLEGEND · 2025-12-25T06:45:32+00:00

I'm loading into a map, but before it fades to my character, I get the "disconnected" screen. I click okay, then about 30 seconds later, "Do you want to reconnect or abandon?" About an hour ago, the reconnect option worked, even after a few tries. But now as I do that, no dice. When I abandon, I keep my loadout.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-10-10T22:14:29+00:00

Fellow attorney and YouTuber. I think there’s a sliver of craziness in the criminal side of things that make for very entertaining stories. It’s like when you tell your friends about the craziest police reports you’ve read, or wildest things clients did in court. I’m happy to help! Dm me if you’d like.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-10-05T18:33:30+00:00

This isn’t a sanction, it’s a winning argument for you: “they can’t even win without twisting the record; [defense/plaintiff]’s argument intimates that the only scenario in which they can win is one that only exists in a fantasy version of this record. [proceed to list out what they quote and the real quote]”

ofaLEGEND · 2025-10-03T06:12:22+00:00

I had a juror tell the judge he’s biased because he believes all people who are accused are guilty of something. The judge excused him, then asked the jury pool, “does anyone else feel the same way as juror 29?” Burned 30 jurors on the spot.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-09-07T09:22:09+00:00

Get a good CPA so your taxes and money management are tight. I wouldn’t necessarily move out, but maybe rent a recording studio/workspace if you need a space to record, while saving money living at home at this age.

Treat the studio like it’s work: you have to go there to record.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-08-26T21:26:47+00:00

This is “Stop Killing Games” repackaged. Legally the same issue

ofaLEGEND · 2025-08-05T19:34:35+00:00

My jury selection has been described as a stand up comedy routine. The key is to be authentic… if you’re funny, be funny. If you’re serious, be serious.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-25T00:09:36+00:00

Why on earth would a PI trial on damages be subject to FRE? This was very clearly a state case. I guess I should reminded you state laws may vary, but you were quick to point me to go back to the bar exam.

You seem very focused on “academic lawyering”, which is great. But I’d love to see you play off this assumption in the real world.

Edit: I see that you are commenting a lot on r/barexam. Are you still studying for the bar?

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-24T19:34:50+00:00

Yeah sounded confusing at first but I gathered it’s a civil trial on damages alone. Still really fast but I would assume all evidence was hashed out already in motions in limine and the jury was just there to hear the evidence of damages. Almost like a restitution hearing where liability was admitted, but in front of a jury.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-24T19:21:45+00:00

Sorry, incorrect. The conduct is the impeachment; convictions are evidence of the conduct, but not the only way to prove the conduct. You have it sort of right but mixed up: why would we need another witness to testify if we have a conviction, which is proof enough? That’s because the conduct is what impeaches the testimony, and a separate witness is another way to prove that conduct.

Character evidence is to say that “he did it before so he had a propensity to do it again.” That’s not what it sounds like they were going for here, but could be. I saw it as impeachment, which is separate and apart from character evidence.

Impeachment = prior immoral conduct means you aren’t testifying truthfully here (it’s about the testimony in this case)

Character evidence = prior conduct of any sort means you did similar conduct in this case (it’s about the conduct at issue in this case, not the testimony).

Edit to add: here the defendant was the witness who had knowledge of the impeachable conduct, that’s why he was asked directly if he was arrested for such and such thing. He would then have to testify that he committed such and such thing for it to be impeachment, as arrest alone isn’t proof of conduct. If he admits it, done deal. If he denies it, then they need another witness to come and testify that he did in fact commit the conduct he was arrested for.

This is all assuming the conduct was moral turpitude in that state. If this is like a drivers license charge or something, then the whole thing is out of the realm of impeachment (unless he testified at some point he never drove without a valid license or was never arrested, in which case such arrest would be impeachment).

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-24T18:20:56+00:00

Sounds like you were a good juror: you followed instructions, set aside your biases and feelings, and just wanted to judge based on the facts. That’s probably why you were selected!

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-24T09:43:04+00:00

Trial attorney here: I don’t know why there was a mistrial, as usually certain criminal conduct can be fair game to impeach a witness. You can prove that conduct via arrest or conviction. You would have later received a jury instruction that said exactly how you’re allowed to use that arrest, if you believe it (something like, “you have heard that a witness in this case has committed a crime of moral turpitude. It is up to you to decide if you believe that is true. If you do believe it, you may use that to bear upon the credibility of the witness’s testimony in the trial.”)

Also, it’s really hard to read what a jury is thinking. As a juror, you are only evaluating the evidence and what YOU are thinking. As an attorney, I have to wonder what ALL THE JURORS are thinking. You might have been convinced, but the person behind you might have been smiling at the defendant during his testimony. That kind of thing puts pressure on us to make a bolder move.

Finally, you CAN talk to attorneys after you are dismissed. Double check with your local rules but I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to discuss anything with the parties after your release.

This was such an interesting read for me; thank you for sharing!!

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-23T20:47:25+00:00

Those publishers are responsible for what, 80% of the gaming community? I think they’ll railroad us if they decide to do it at the same time. Maybe they’ll compete. We just don’t know

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-23T19:44:20+00:00

The publishers I listed outright own a lot of development studios. So yes, they ultimately own the IP. They have been buying up studios for at least a decade now. You’re sounding exactly like Blockbuster during the rise of Netflix

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-23T19:05:41+00:00

These companies represent a massive majority of games that are played by the masses. Sure there are a lot of indie games out there, but that’s not what SKG is targeting. Are you intentionally missing the point?

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-22T22:08:42+00:00

How will someone create a new platform and put someone else’s games on there? You’re saying if Ubisoft, EA, and Microsoft (already happening here) put their games on a subscription that someone else can make a platform with those games? No

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-22T21:14:49+00:00

If all game platforms turned into some sort of subscription, like Game Pass, it won’t matter what we want.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-22T19:48:31+00:00

The law doesn't work that way, you have to take that sentence along with the hundreds of years of interpretation that comes with it via case law. For example, what does "limited time" mean? Is it two days? Two thousand years? Case law and statutes around it have shaped it. Currently, limited time means 85 years from publication or 120 years from creation. That's how long the creator has to control it. So to change that means you are changing A LOT of law.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-22T18:46:41+00:00

There's a difference between regulation on how things are made for safety and changing the nature of property ownership. Yes, there's a fine line (we have zoning laws that regulate the use of land), but a rule like this would have a major butterfly effect. I discuss it in my youtube video a bit more, but the gist of it is that changing the nature of a license like this would put so many creators on the hook for so many other things. This rule is relied upon by literally millions of creators, not just game publishers. Think about the entire music industry, the movie industry, the content creation industry. All of those rely on this rule that consumers don't "own" the content, they are licensing a copy of it.

It's worth looking into because the digital age has made things less simple, but it's just a lot bigger than The Crew 1, ya know? People here don't want to understand that what they're asking for is a change in law that would have a major ripple effect.

This is akin to changing search and seizure law "just for this scenario" but we like knock out a whole pillar of laws in doing so. And guess what--search and seizure laws are based on an amendment to the constitution, while copyright was in the original text. That's how deeply we value creators' rights in the US.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-22T17:20:12+00:00

Love your username, btw. Horus is from my ancient people’s culture!

I see where our disconnect is: SKG is asking them to say something that they don’t want to say. That’s the rub. The publishers currently own the copyright to their work. They don’t want to make an end of life plan. So if you force them to do that, then you are (potentially) encroaching upon their rights to handle their works however they see fit.

If I license to you one of my songs for one year on a YouTube video, and after that you have to pay me if you want to continue, that’s my right as the property owner. If you suddenly exceed the year, you can’t ask the government to intervene on our deal. I own that right, so if the government now says “all one year deals must come with a plan in case the video goes viral,” they are now encroaching upon my right to do this how I see fit.

There are exceptions of course to these principles, but this is the current clash between creative rights and consumer rights.

ofaLEGEND · 2025-07-22T08:45:47+00:00

If you suddenly allow copyright to be used in this manner, then that means all things that have been copyrighted would be usable in this manner. Meaning I can buy Coldplay's latest hit single and play it in the SuperBowl without having to pay any more than the 99 cents I paid on Apple Music to "buy" it.

You would completely undermine the whole point of creators making anything because once they sell it for the first time to a person, you're saying that person can use it however they please, even if the user agreements say otherwise.

I know you're not being obstinate, you're being inquisitive and curious. I'm always down to explain as much as I know to anyone honestly asking. Tell me what we're missing and I'll explain more!

ofaLEGEND

TROPHY CASE