Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta - Polysubstance enthusiast, "Lawtuber" turned Dabbleverse streamer, swinger, "whitebread ass nigga", snuffs animals for fun, visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold who lost his license to practice law. Wife's bod worth $50. The normies even know.

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

Your overall point is relatively on point. Your math and understanding of how social media/public opinion works is not.

Elissa regularly gets 1000+ views - best barometer - on a Nick indicting clip. Her channel is known to be a critical forum atp (as long as Nick allows her to survive).

Let's assume, conservatively, 200 of those are real detractors (based on comment #s) in different forms. They're here, they're on LawTube channels across chats, they're on Twitter - probably elsewhere. They're keeping track. They know the facts.

200 people with different intonations of shrill and calling it out - Drex grooming, Still-Life fedposting, freeze peach hypocrocy, peeps grossed out at the I-wanna-fuck Mandy shit, a general agreement that Nick's Locals is trash, randos from the past dramas - creates an avalanche of next-level people.

Then, guess what? Several thousand just quietly leave.

That quiet group is informed by people speaking out. It's how most politics and public opinion works. OFC it's due to Nick's behavior but neither lives in isolation.

I can't even quantify the multiplication effect of those 200 people along with Nick's spiraling but it seems to be a solid -30%ish+ in viewership and -50%ish in Rumblerants/Superchats.

There have been a few studies into online group dynamics and specifically around supporters. I don't know if one has ever been done on detractors (aka trolls), but that would be interesting. The supporters in a common online group (and I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, or at least from hazy memory), 1 in 10 will do something free to support a show/community/whatever, simply by doing something not too difficult. Signing up for a forum, hitting a like button, subscribing, whatever. Of that group, 1 in 20 will go to the effort of supporting (whether that's sharing a post, "donating", signing up for patreon, etc.). The numbers there vary depending on how difficult (how much friction) each task has. Donating in crypto has a lot more friction that donating free gibs from youtube or even donating on youtube or twitch, when they already have your payment info.

It would be interesting to see the effect trolls have on a community, and how organized troll efforts affect things. This could scale from something like, people turning on Boogie, all all the way up boycotts of Bud Light or Chick-fil-a. And how do detractors actually affect something- yeah there's a thumbs down button, but it's all but pointless on youtube. Yeah there's conversation in comments and chat, but less than 1 in 10 actually bother with it at all. You can't, as a troll, take money away from a creator in a direct sense; and I question how wide running a "hater" campaign really affects things, or if it just drives "hate watching" engagement. The least friction path for a Rackets hater, is either turning off things - canceling/unsub'ing from locals, turning off notifications or unsubscribing from youtube, leaving discord. (The group here a-lawging Rackets is something probably like 1 in 10,000.)

Nick never leaned heavily into the education aspect. He pontificated on his own (often wrong) leag interpretation and got wrecked by his lack of trial experience and motion practice.

Nick did talk a bit about setting up a legal education thing, but then Branca independently went out and did it. Talk is cheap, but at least for Nick, it has been profitable. (Maybe not sustainable, time will tell on that.)

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

With Nick's model of freeze peach, a Discord, and a 24/7 chat that's now unruly and expecting Nick's attention, many people will resort to doing the dumbest things TO get his attention. Hence wine mom nudey pics. It's a chat that ultimately controls Nick -- not the other way around. Yes, chat is always right -- but chat also shouldn't control you. Nick is between a rock and a hard place -- If he starts implementing rules to get a handle on chat and possibly gain subs, he goes against his preach of freeze peach, and may ultimately create a new set of "freeze peach detractors." If he lets chat go hog wild in the name of freeze peach, he is at the mercy of the chat... 24/7.

Another good summary post.

Specifically regarding the quoted portion, Nick is already cracking under the Lolbertarian weight of the NAP and Freeze Peach. He is discovering that something a few shades removed from Anarchy is not maintainable on the internet because there are no social co sequences or rewards to compelling reasonable behaviour.

He has already banned a few people, and it would not surprise me if he had some kind of rule infrastructure stood up in the community. My money is that it will be about 6-18 months too late, in typical Nose fashion, and he will bitch and moan about how he DOESN'T want to do it but SOME PEOPLE cannot handle FUN!

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

Nick never leaned heavily into the education aspect. He pontificated on his own (often wrong) leag interpretation and got wrecked by his lack of trial experience and motion practice.

What exactly were his wrong legal interpretations? I know he was getting some flack for his handling of Montigraph suing him and there was him screaming "OBJECT" through out the Rittenhouse trial but I really can't think of anything else.

 

[Cynthia Behave]

There have been a few studies into online group dynamics and specifically around supporters.

Leaving aside Nick for a second...

Those studies are super interesting to me for obvious reasons. The exact same beats effect every social media platform (esp regarding "bullying" and "hate"- quotations bc those words are so overused).

Summary: The pile-on effect is ridiculously rewarded on social media. The drumbeat for the most extreme voice generally has no consequences. Hence, people joyfully engage in the "hate" to a much greater degree than they ever would in real life.

The researchers speculate that it's training our brains to be more hateful generally - in the name of "support". I buy it. An easy place to see this is the activist trans community.

More concerning to me (but not regarding me - I'm seldom in the middle) is this: Being the 'middle person' in an online fight - the reasonable person who might point out both sides (or whatever) - get zero social media rewards, unlike in real life. Worse, those people almost always get taken down with the person who is the original target.

So, it's one side or the other and the more extreme positions generally win. You see it in Nick's Locals in it's most extreme form. I'm not on Twitter but apparently it's just a default there. It's clearly on Kiwi but Kiwi has the defense of literally being designed to be on the hating side of a Lolcow.

It would be interesting to see the effect trolls have on a community, and how organized troll efforts affect things.

Back to Nick... Right. That's what IS interesting to me about his detractors... It's TOTALLY unorganized.

There's some obvious overlap in platform posts/comments along with some here-and-there communication among people on Discord. But, unlike Xino's repeated efforts to get all of his most ardent supporters in one place to conspire or whatever, we're a bunch of loose misfits who are annoyed by rando shit.

Triggers: Hydro's was the Drex stuff and the per se pedo stuff, mine was the Locals rape/misogyny stuff, Himedall's seems to be a variety but particularly Christianity issues (large group on that topic), others by Nick's addiction, others by porn/anal stuff, others by maybe-swinging, others by generalized hypocrisy.

Nick did talk a bit about setting up a legal education thing,

You mean his effort to pay some law students to look into cases? Yeah, wtf happened to THAT?! He was gonna hire a bunch of law students to help him prepare (!!!) to discuss legal issues. Add that to the list of unfulfilled promises.

 

[AnOminous]

He is discovering that something a few shades removed from Anarchy is not maintainable on the internet because there are no social co sequences or rewards to compelling reasonable behaviour.

Chat is also a lot different than a forum. A forum can endure a bunch of spergs and it's easy enough to ignore them. People don't generally flee a forum because of some spergs. That's because a forum is asynchronous. You can drop in and out whenever.

Chats are real-time, so a single sperg can completely ruin the place, drive people off, and disrupt interactions between the others.

So having some fedposting spastic mongoloid like Still-Born makes the whole place less pleasant and only similar retards will want to hang around there.

 

[JudyGemstone]

What exactly were his wrong legal interpretations? I know he was getting some flack for his handling of Montigraph suing him and there was him screaming "OBJECT" through out the Rittenhouse trial but I really can't think of anything else.

Many graduate law school, pass the bar, and have a general understanding of "the law." But tax law is vastly different from trial advocacy, trust law, criminal law, employment law, etc. With all the different areas of law, for ONE lawyer (who barely practiced) acting like he knows it all... yeah, no. Even though he has said, "That's ____ law and I don't know it that well" -- he sure does act like he knows all areas of law. Cases in point...

As far as the Rittenhouse trial -- He basically struck gold because he knows 2A very well, so he just resorted to explaining 2A when he didn't know what else to say. Many have commented that his objections and legal analysis were wrong, but he was vindicated with Rittenhouse being found innocent.

The Sydney Watson V The Blaze Lawsuit -- he could get wrong, but he's against her, most likely because he's friends with Elijah Schaffer, who is implicated in the lawsuit. He doesn't know the ins and outs of employment law/contracts and how discrimination in the work place can be argued. Him saying Sydney Watson would most likely lose the case was laughable. If you've dealt with any employment attorney, most would say The Blaze would want to settle -- strictly in regards to The Blaze allowing an employee (Schaffer) to get drunk on the premises alone.

Lastly, the Murdoch trial -- Also somewhat laughable. Nick went a weird route fighting for Murdoch's innocence, even after ample amounts of evidence showed the guy 99.9% killed his family. Contrast his coverage to Emily D Baker (a former prosecutor of 15 yrs) who was tough on the prosecution, but also said the defense was ill prepared -- Nick said the defense was fantastic. Murdoch was found guilty. I have questions...

Sorry for the long response, just tried to provide examples. But in summation, Nick and most of lawtube have a BASIC understanding of the law -- something most of the population doesn't understand. He could literally tell his audience anything and they would believe him because he has a JD -- yet JD's who actually practice would tell you he's full of hot air.

 

[mitro]

Anyone remember Judy's first post in this thread (and on the farms)? It was to excoriate @Dracula's Blood Sucker 's post regarding Faran's channel turning into ClipThisB*tch.

Yesterday she posted a link to a ClipThisB*tch version of the Flashcast Masterson/July shitflinging in the Comicsgate thread and then returned to this thread.

EDIT: Clip link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSnike8HF-I

A couple of innocuous posts later and we are being told that Joe's chat is just like Nick's (which I would disagree with). I wonder... who do both chats generally hate with a passion?

Whether someone is familiar with Borysenko or not, these posts were framed to make Joe look terrible and make Borysenko a victim. What was the first example given of why the chat was terrible? They called her fat. lol (I have no idea of what was actually said, but its Borysenko, so it's likely deserved.) (link to post)

Then looking at this post (34601) the repeated double hyphen caught my eye. Someone else uses it in their writings:

There's smaller hints strewn throughout her posts, but nothing as convincing as the above.

I've screenshotted all posts at this time in case of any edits.

Maybe I'm wrong... maybe I'm not.

 

[BelUwUga]

Rekieta-Ralph crossover? Shameless posted from community happening.

Allow me to quote my own response to this a few weeks ago:

This is just turning into the Dick Masterson saga all over again.

Nick has been hanging out with Dick a lot lately and has made up with Ralph, right? It sounds like he's getting farms related advice from the best right now...

Is the Monday i hypocrite show going to rime with the last dick show appearance?

I just had a thought, Ralph is pretty much unwittingly Dick's pet retard right? Dick & Nick being friends wouldn't necessitate smoothing things over with Ralph. Getting two of your pet retards tilting at windmills would though.

Glad to see things are moving along nicely on that front. I'm leaning more and more heavily towards Rackets being the one laughed at and not laughing with Dick.

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

Keep your eyes peeled. I just looked outside and we are in a Full Moon, so her and her necro'ed cats should be respawning in the thread at any moment now. The only thing that might delay her reappearance is the lack of a harvest since Nick is too busy being a busy streamer to stream.

Here's your kudos. The full moon revived her and she was back to posting like her shit fit never happened the next day.

I posted earlier about Nick-lite Joe the other night...


Here is the response from Dr. B in regards to the audience. Let's be clear here, 85-90% of Joe's audience is from Rekieta. (For reference, Joe has 90k -- She has 107k and blocks people). Joe also accused her of only caring about the numbers, to which she immediately refuted saying she could give a fuck about the numbers. She cares about civil mature discourse.

View attachment 5152061

I'm glad I was vidicated reading this scree and thinking she was probably arguing in bad faith relying on her audience to the dirty work of destroying her opponent like Destiny of Keffals. Fucking midwit retards. Shitting up everything.

Triggers: Hydro's was the Drex stuff and the per se pedo stuff, mine was the Locals rape/misogyny stuff, Himedall's seems to be a variety but particularly Christianity issues (large group on that topic), others by Nick's addiction, others by porn/anal stuff, others by maybe-swinging, others by generalized hypocrisy.

Don't forget the time he called out his kids for being killjoys that suck up all his time so he can't spend more time having homoerotic sex.

You mean his effort to pay some law students to look into cases? Yeah, wtf happened to THAT?! He was gonna hire a bunch of law students to help him prepare (!!!) to discuss legal issues. Add that to the list of unfulfilled promises.

I think Nick was seriously trying to figure out a way to outsource all the law content onto someone else so he could go full balldo. Never supposed to be a law channel my ass.

edit: words

 

[AnOminous]

Sorry for the long response, just tried to provide examples. But in summation, Nick and most of lawtube have a BASIC understanding of the law -- something most of the population doesn't understand. He could literally tell his audience anything and they would believe him because he has a JD -- yet JD's who actually practice would tell you he's full of hot air.

He had a better track record when he was actually reading the entirety of the record, as compared to just half-assing it when he does it at all.

Also in any legal case at least one of the lawyers is wrong.

 

[JudyGemstone]

Nick has been hanging out with Dick a lot lately and has made up with Ralph, right? It sounds like he's getting farms related advice from the best right now...

I believe it was two or three Friday's ago where there was a new guest on Nick's stream, and she made a comment about Ethan and his drinking. Dick immediately chimed in, more or less saying that Ethan needed to be given kudos for going sober, and he was doing a pretty good job so far. He didn't say it too kindly to the woman... If you've watched Dick for a while, you can immediately spot when he's being nice but quietly saying "fuck you" under his breath. This was one of those times.

Glad to see things are moving along nicely on that front. I'm leaning more and more heavily towards Rackets being the one laughed at and not laughing with Dick.

I think we're about halfway to that finish line...

 

[Not Who You Think]

TheNobleWeeaboo​	How easy it is to hide a body.​
Sally78​	Plant endangered flowers...can't dig them up​

MykLikesTacos​

Pretty quick on that answer there​

Gafreggin​	And yet these mfers still mess it up somehow​
TheNobleWeeaboo​	Feed the Florida crocs. They're endangered, can't open them up to look for bones.​

Sally78​	Sometimes I am quick​
MykLikesTacos​	Ya, like when there's a body around....​
MykLikesTacos​	@Sally78 Now the gardens makes so much sense​
Sally78​	​

MykLikesTacos​

That and singing on the graves of your victims. Savage​

Sally's "quickness" can be attributed to this popular meme:



I've seen this meme in many places (even here on KF) though different images are sometimes used. It is reminiscent of locals user YaBoyHPLovecraft who likely took inspiration from this:

 

[Diamond Homonculus]

Whether someone is familiar with Borysenko or not, these posts were framed to make Joe look terrible and make Borysenko a victim.

I did find it hard to believe that anyone in this neck of the woods or Sektur to use a Ralphian term wouldn't know about the shitshow surrounding Borysenko. Heck even normies know who she is.

 

[Phillip Green]

I can't even quantify the multiplication effect of those 200 people along with Nick's spiraling but it seems to be a solid -30%ish+ in viewership and -50%ish in Rumblerants/Superchats.

You may be right, and I won't claim to have good hard numbers to support me, but I suspect you're overestimating the impact of the network effects of detractor content. The majority of Nick's peak YT audience (~500k subscribers) were never tuned in enough to catch any of this drama. Never forget that the average IQ is 100. These people simply saw funny man trial stream or Vic-guarding, and stayed for something amusing to watch late at night, or to ruin the show by requesting toasts to their dead hamster. Boomers and weebs and wine moms, oh my!

I won't argue the Farms/Claire/Elissa had no effect, but I just don't think it accounts for nearly as much of the overall viewership decline as you. I’ll continue to argue that people who actually care enough to follow the drama is very small.

I still (8 months on from the molly binge at the Gay 90's) see people asking "wait, what is wrong with my hecking trad dad christian weeb wars hero Rackets?" I'm sure you've seen similar on Elissa's comments over the last few months. And that's just from the small minority who are clued in enough to pay attention to forums or comment sections.

Even if you’re actively following LawTube™ drama, you’ve got to actively search for takes shitting on Nick. The other clip channels and his LawTube buddies are consistently noseguarding. I think the organic backlash in the Rumble and YouTube chat where the normies can see it is probably a much bigger real issue for Nick.

The degree to which the social networking effects have hurt superchats is probably much more significant, given some of the loudest detractors are former superchatters. Aside from the potato people constantly buying toasts, those superchatters were more invested and likely felt a connection to Nick and the show. Seeing the degeneration obviously left many of them scorned. However, it’s hard to say how much the superchat income died off because of general disgust with earnest sodomy talk, and how much was Nick moving parasocial contact to Locals or his private text message swinger circle.

 

[Chibitzen]

Oh wow, I remember Karen Boring Psycho. I have come to one single conclusion with regards to that particular "Creator". She's out of her fucking mind. She gets quite hysterical about perceived slights and detractors and then suggests she has psychic inklings. Which she then confirms on stream with her actual paid psychic "friend" where they discuss said neurotic topics of the day in the political space. Content doesn't get much lower than that. I haven't watched her shit in a few years. I did peak at her thread because I happened to see she had one at one point and it was way too much lunacy for me. So any serious conversation using her as a buttress is reasonable cause for an eye roll.


Back on the topic... I agree that the damage that has best been done by Rekieta himself. He built a new brand on the cheap like a quick and dirty contractor and then is surprised that supporters and detractors alike aren't actually paying $5/mo to help keep up the business themselves, but rather are cynically enjoying playing "pick apart" with his brand and community standing.

Even most of the Locals are regularly taking pot shots at (read: provoking) both KF and his business at his expense. Realistically, it's of no consequence to them or the rest of the internet whether Rekieta loses money or subs. Why he thought any of this could work as a lasting strategy for sustainable growth is simply nuts. He built a House of Kindling and said to the Locals here is your cheap source of amusement! Then acts surprised when people start looking for ways to make it catch fire when they're bored.

Edit: Words

 

[Spaded Dave]

I just don't think it accounts for nearly as much of the overall viewership decline as you.

When it comes right down to it, detractors don't have much power unless you're giving them something to talk about. The idea that pointing out and mocking his behavior is a bigger issue for his channel than the behavior itself is...a strange take from our local loony.

 

[JudyGemstone]

Phillip Green:
Even if you’re actively following LawTube™ drama, you’ve got to actively search for takes shitting on Nick. The other clip channels and his LawTube buddies are consistently noseguarding. I think the organic backlash in the Rumble and YouTube chat where the normies can see it is probably a much bigger real issue for Nick.

While I would have agreed with this months ago, it seems that the number of lawtubers coming on his show have dwindled to a select few. While others in lawtube might speak nice of Nick if he's brought up (to avoid spergs and drama), not coming on his show anymore is a silent point being made...

Those who we've seen in the last 3 months:

• Aussie Overlawd (Friday drunk streams)
• Legal Vices (Friday drunk streams)
• Good Lawgic (Mondays... but has missed some in recent weeks)
• Legal Mindset (Maybe once or twice in the last few months)
• DUI Guy (Once for the "Depp Trial One Year Later")
• Branca (Maybe once or twice in the last few months)
• Ty Beard

Those we haven't seen in the last 3+ months -- Some were former regulars, some atleast a guest every once in a while for a trial or panel:

• Viva Frei
• Robert Barnes
• Uncivil Law -- Kurt (Unless I missed an appearance in the last 3 months)
• Nate The Lawyer (Last appearance was Murdoch Trial)
• Andrea Burkhart (Haven't seen her since maybe Depp trial?)
• Emily D. Baker
• Runkle of the Bailey -- Ian
• Law & Lumber -- Rob
• Lead Attorney
• Lawyer You Know -- Peter Tragos
• Legal Bytes (No explanation needed)
• Hoeg Law -- Richard (Haven't seen since Depp trial)
• Robert Gouveia
• Natalie Lawyer Chick
• Boss Attorney Bre
• Law Talk with Mike
• Attorney Tom -- who barely comes in chat anymore like he used to

EDIT: 3-6 months changed to 3+ months

 

[Maude Snew]

Hoeg Law -- Richard

I'm not saying he would or wouldn't show up but listing him either way seems dishonest to me, dude had a stroke not too long ago, I don't even know if he ever returned to his own show.

 

[Swole McPole]

In a stream the other night where Joe had Dr. B as a guest (woman who got famous for leaving the Democratic party, then ran for NH Governor -- Joe couldn't even do a simple google search on her), the chat literally was just sperging out, calling her fat and every other name in the book because she didn't agree with Joe.

To be fair though -- she's all those things and worse. And not because she disagrees with Joe but because she's a retarded attention whore who didn't come across a drama she wasn't desperate to insert herself into.

I'm surprised she doesn't have a lolcow section here. I haven't checked. I bet she does.

Edit: Ah, late again.

Whether someone is familiar with Borysenko or not, these posts were framed to make Joe look terrible and make Borysenko a victim. What was the first example given of why the chat was terrible? They called her fat. lol (I have no idea of what was actually said, but its Borysenko, so it's likely deserved.) (link to post)

As soon as I read that long-assed post about how Borysenko was a victim of Joe, my immediate thought was.. "I bet this is Borysenko herself."

I saw Viva Frei and Barnes badmouthing her earlier today.

 

[JudyGemstone]

I'm not saying he would or wouldn't show up but listing him either way seems dishonest to me, dude had a stroke not too long ago, I don't even know if he ever returned to his own show.

Very true... I should have it read 6+ months. Hoeg hasn't been on since the Depp trial, if that.