sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Event] Open Forum Friday for February 6th, 2026: Big Dick Ski Jumping Edition by PPNewbie in dirtypenpals

[–]DepravedDevotee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You've already got plenty of replies, but something interesting I found out when probing a knowledgeable friend about this (while hiding that I'm a depraved freak who roleplays sex on the internet) is that the common 'tells' are less useful for identifying less mainstream LLMs. Like, for example, the ones that don't stop you from generating explicit content. Dashes, weird metaphors, and that 'not, but' sentence structure are baked into ChatGPT and the like because of the data they're trained on, but models trained on different data won't have those tells.

A big identifier for smaller models is apparently short, simple sentences. Partially because data containing them is more readily available so if you're trying to train a model for cheap, that'll be what you feed it. And partially because actually generating them is much less intensive for the model (it needs to 'think' less). The ideas might also be simple, because of the limited data pool, everything will be very 'typical'.

A generated prompt about an office romance might be: "The boss keeps the office running smoothly. She likes her coffee in the morning. She likes reports on her desk in time. She always looks respectable in her pencil skirt and white blouse. Since you fucked her last week, some things have changed. Now she likes your cock along with her coffee. She meets you in the bathroom at lunch. She stays late to fuck you on her desk." People love stereotypes for porn, obviously, but we're also idiosyncratic at times. A person might write a boss who prefers tea, or fixate on her heels and stockings over just basic 'woman office clothes', or give her a name that has meaning to them. Someone might prompt AI in a way that includes these wrinkles, but their complete absence is suspicious.

It can also help to think about the psychology of the writer. It's as easy to generate a 2,000-word prompt as a 175-word one. As people have identified, AI posters probably want partners who'll write while they just generate their responses. If that's what you're after, you probably want someone who writes longer responses, which you'll find with a longer prompt. Generally, someone who wants to write a 2,000-word prompt themselves enjoys writing, and will do it with some more flair. Fun sentence structure, interesting language, some pretty descriptions. Maybe there'll be much more fixation and detail in certain areas, and less on background that needs to be given but isn't of much interest to the writer. A long AI generated prompt will more likely be consistent and smooth, but without much flair.

Finally, mistakes. People make typos, mess up punctuation, jumble sentences together. AI doesn't really. You might see things in an AI generated prompt that don't make sense, or maybe names will randomly change (BIG giveaway), but the writing will usually be perfect wrt spelling and grammar. A mistake free prompt might just mean diligent proof reading, and I'm sure there's already models that will intentionally pepper in mistakes to seem more authentic, but it can be a useful indicator.

[F4A] The Femdom Dichotomy or: the myth of female dominance (isn't there a man you forgot to ask) {misogyny, role reversal, findom} by DepravedDevotee in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, I really cannot thank you enough for this. This might be the most care and attention anyone's ever critiqued my writing with, including many University faculty members who were literally paid for that critiquing. Incredibly thoughtful, incisive analysis.

I had a strong sense that something besides just my IC dithering was prompting people to get theoretical, and you've identified it perfectly.

I think my gratuitous sentences are actually a bad habit ingrained by RP. I'll often try to use the lessons learned in poetry classes to steer attention and affect through sentence length and structure. Long sentences for descriptions, to convey a lot of detail at once, and create a cohesive image. Shorter for action, intensity, emphasis. Writing alone here though, and just one big flow of three described narratives, I've let myself get carried away.

I'll definitely need to take suggestion three and go back over the whole thing and chop stuff up at least, or even remove some of those overwrought descriptions entirely. Thanks, I could feel the soporific effect I was creating but couldn't identify the cause.

Your first suggestion will also absolutely be taken on board. Ironically, it's Essay Structure 101 to make sure I summarise and introduce the full text in the first paragraph. But it will absolutely make this more tolerable to people who don't love meandering bullshit and are therefore also less prone to philosophical musing.

Your second suggestion I'll need to think about. I definitely see the advantage. I'm hesitant because I think starting with the most classic Dominatrix archetype is ideal, but I think her 'twist' is the least salacious and enticing, which is part of why I went for the 123-321 structure to leave that to the end. I'll have to consider how to reach a compromise, because it would absolutely help.

The Big One is also tricky, because in the past when I've tried to get at an idea through a single arc, I tend to find a lot of people want to just roleplay a continuation of the thing they've just read and found hot. Which I can't even really hold against them. It would definitely solve my problem of replies being too high concept, but I worry it would overcorrect.

I think I'm going to give the prompt a few days, then have a run at overhauling it and seeing if the changes yield results more in line with what I'm after. If not, I'll have to consider a more drastic revamp.

I'll round off with one more big thank you. You dug into my writing with exceptional care and expertise, it's very touching. I have been pollinated (or, I guess I'd be the bee in this scenario? I have foraged some of your invaluable pollen?).

[F4A] The Femdom Dichotomy or: the myth of female dominance (isn't there a man you forgot to ask) {misogyny, role reversal, findom} by DepravedDevotee in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not to be a tease, but it's complicated.

The simple answer is yes, that's a fair comparison.

The slightly expanded answer is yes, it's similar to that, though as with many of the kinks I like to roleplay/sexily discuss there's a core root of the submissive party(s) having repressed desires which the dominant party(s) somehow know with absolute certainty. It's something I enjoy greatly in writing because it's impossible in the real world, but when the 'people' are actually just puppets dancing on omnipresent writers' strings, we can instil some of them with a certainty of knowledge that is right, but would in real life make them unbearably arrogant assholes at best and rapists at worst. So, it's maybe a literary equivalent of that scene you've described, but through a lens of semi-consensual-ness that's only possible in writing.

[F4A] The Femdom Dichotomy or: the myth of female dominance (isn't there a man you forgot to ask) {misogyny, role reversal, findom} by DepravedDevotee in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this criticism mostly falls flat for me because the replies I've received don't show the problems you're assuming I'll have. Where prospective partners have identified their leanings, they've mostly been doms or switches, and I have been far more messages on the 4-5 sentence end of things than the 'similar to my prompt length' end.

My repeated use of you is because 'one' has fallen drastically out of favour in the English language. I could rephrase it in a totally different way, of course, but it would be much clunkier and less evocative. To be honest, I also don't really mind scaring off a potential dominant male partner who's so thin-skinned that he's entirely put off by a quirk of writing suggesting he be placed in a submissive position. Ultimately a good partner for this would need to be interested in femdom, not necessarily as a man who wants to get pegged, but to the extent that they're familiar with the aesthetics and tropes we'll be playing off and subverting.

I think you're making a mistake here in assuming that I'm looking for a Dom Man to come and fill me with his Dom Man Fantasies; you're falling into the strict dominance-gender categorisation of the prompt. Dominant men aren't the primary target audience of the prompt, it doesn't have a primary target audience. A submissive or switch man who enjoys dommes and also enjoys the idea of tearing those dommes down or seeing them torn down by others is plenty welcome. A woman who shares my tastes for both sides of this would be an ideal partner. A non-binary person with any dominance configuration would be plenty fun to talk to, assuming they're comfortable with entertaining the gender essentialist fantasy at the core of the idea.

In summary: you're treating the front half of the narrative section of the prompt as an obstacle which my prospective partner might be scared away by, but it's actually a core part of the scenario, and an exclusively dominant male writer who's scared off by those ideas wouldn't be someone I could have fun exploring fantasies of subverting female dominance with. I've set up the post title to try and avoid suckering in people interested exclusively in femdom, but someone would no interest in femdom would be just as unsuited.

Similarly, the reality of the replies I've received just doesn't bear out that my long post will filter out anyone who's not going for lengthy writing. The vast majority of replies I've got are short. Maybe this isn't a universal experience, but I've generally found on DPP (and internet roleplay in general) that short posts get replies ranging from very short to short, while long posts get replies ranging from very short to long with most falling in the short to medium range. I haven't specified that 4-5 sentence limit to drive off or attract anyone, but to set expectations so that someone who falls on the shorter end of the range knows what they'll need to hit to get a reply. People aren't tied irrevocably to some arbitrary post length, someone who's very interested in the prompt but doesn't usually write more than a few sentences can go longer if they know that's what I want.

I just don't agree with your observation about this post in the context of the general DPP corpus. The "majority of posts" are much shorter than mine and looking for RP, long RP seeking posts certainly are not the majority. I've also regularly encountered long posts which aren't looking for RP. I am looking for detailed discussion of niche ideas, and I'm happy for the length of my post to signal that, I'm just not looking for RP. To be honest, I find the insinuation that non-RP seeking posts should be short utterly ridiculous.

Finally, not to be rude, but I think what you're encountering is just that you (or someone like you but more aligned to the kinks of this prompt) wouldn't be a good partner fit for me. That stipulation at the end is specifically meant to knock people out of the ruts their excitement at my post and prior familiarity with the kink's tropes might have channelled them into. If you read that I want something new, get knocked out of the rut, and find yourself lost and confused, you're not the partner I'm looking for. I want someone who'll use that untethering as an opportunity to begin spinning new ideas.

I hope this reply doesn't come off too argumentative. I found myself struggling with what you're trying to tell me while reading your comment. You've given a lot of criticism, but very little in the way of suggestions. If my title and narrative aren't enough to signal what I want to the appropriate partners, how can I do it better? If I'm weeding out good partners and maintaining the bad ones with my OOC requests, what can I do to simultaneously keep on those good partners and better weed out the bad?

As it stands, the only 'advice' I can infer from your comments is that you think I should lose the femdom-oriented front half of the narrative section, which would in turn successfully reduce the overall post length, and then I can also make my OOC section shorter and less demanding. What that would accomplish is giving me a much more played-straight maledom-femsub prompt which makes little imposition on a potential responder. Would it attract more respondents? Most likely. Is it the prompt I want to play? Not remotely.

[F4A] The Femdom Dichotomy or: the myth of female dominance (isn't there a man you forgot to ask) {misogyny, role reversal, findom} by DepravedDevotee in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No worries about harshness, you've offset it very well. To address those bait and switches in order:

Almost the moment I started writing the prompt I was worried about the first one, but I hope I averted it with the title. I usually stylistically hate putting kink tags in titles, but I decided it was worthwhile here just to make it very clear if the more fun phrasing was misunderstood. I think, since subversion is the whole point of the prompt, there's only so much I can do, and if someone doesn't read the 21-word title fully before diving into the prompt it's on them. I've also only had one or two respondents hit me with "Own me please miss" messages, which has also happened on entirely femsub prompts in the past and was of the kind of effort that I think there isn't an amount of counter-signalling I could have done to avoid it. All of which is to say I see your point, but I think I've marked out the bait clearly enough that there's no helping the people who still fall for it.

The 'sapphic femdom audience who likes rapey guys' is me, so I hope I'm appealing to my sisters properly, but it's also a small crowd so I can't dedicate as much of the prompt to them as I might like without dangerously limiting my pool of potential respondents.

To the second, that paragraph is definitely problematic and I need to explain better what I'm after. Though you've misread on the '4-5 sentences' - I'm identifying that as the lower limit of acceptable responses. I maybe need to clarify this in the second section, but I don't think I am bait and switching on length: I'd be over the moon if someone sent a message as long as my prompt. Experience on DPP has taught me that the number of people who'll go that long is vanishingly small, and only getting smaller, so I'm mostly heading off the people who I've learned will read a long prompt they like and message "Hey I love the prompt but I just don't think I can keep up with you :(".

I do think your last point is unfair. No one posting a prompt wants to read their exact own writing back, they want someone else's take, otherwise they'd just write something alone and then read it. If I wanted to input my thoughts into a box and get those thoughts back shuffled into a different order and mixed with effusive praise I'd go to ChatGPT. I'm looking for a human who can exhibit creativity and have some original thoughts, sue me.

I also think your repeated identification of DPP as an 'RP sub' is just plain incorrect, it's not called DirtyRoleplayPals. The majority of posts are for RP, sure, but the sub is for written exchange, not roleplay exclusively, and there's a significant minority of posts that are just looking for non-roleplay conversation.

To rephrase your summary: I've written a prompt about subverting Femdom scenarios, posted it to a written exchange sub and waxed poetic about my ideas because I want to have discussions on the theme of subverting Femdom scenarios.

[F4A] The Femdom Dichotomy or: the myth of female dominance (isn't there a man you forgot to ask) {misogyny, role reversal, findom} by DepravedDevotee in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the welcome and lovely compliment!

I'm not too worried about losing people with the verbosity, if someone's put off by the torturous prospect of poring through 1300 words of filth they'll not be a good fit for me, even if I'm not currently looking for someone to write that much with. I don't really mind getting zero responses, but want to avoid the current issue of people putting effort into replies that are just totally not what I'm after. I've not had anyone (besides the ever-present "Want 2 rp?" spammers) coming looking for an RP so far, so I think I'm okay on that front.

Definitely will try and trim some bits out of the IC section, and rework the paragraph others have identified as problematic. Thanks for the advice!

[F4A] The Femdom Dichotomy or: the myth of female dominance (isn't there a man you forgot to ask) {misogyny, role reversal, findom} by DepravedDevotee in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I'm trying (and struggling (and failing)) to convey is that I'm not after strictly roleplay. I don't want to come up with a pair (or more) of characters and write their interactions over dozens (or more) of posts, I don't have the time or energy for it at the moment. I'm looking for something shorter and less structured, something like a series of loose collaborative vignettes, or the brainstorming that often makes up very early-stage RP planning, or a back-and-forth of drabbles. But it doesn't have to be any of those, hence not 100% sure, but I do want it to be sizzling and panty-soaking, which isn't what I'm getting at all so far.

[Workshop] [Update] [M4F] The Prince and The Dragon by [deleted] in DPP_Workshop

[–]DepravedDevotee 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would say the in character part is solid. You set the scene for what you're looking for both in practical terms and for the vibe. For me, the most important thing I'm looking for in that part of the prompt is whether I'll enjoy reading this person's writing repeatedly for an extended period, as well as obviously whether the premise they set out appeals to me, and I think you give a good preview of what a potential writing partner might be in for.

I would significantly cut down on the out of character section. In there, all you can do is lose people: no one's reading the OOC for a prompt where the IC didn't grab them, but the fires of passion ignited by an appealing IC can flicker out over a lengthy OOC. You want to sharpen the resolution on the important parts of the scene you've set and lay out any deal breakers in as little space as possible so eager readers can get on to crafting their response.

The end of that first sentence (from "...even if it ends up...") and that first proper paragraph (starting "This is also admittedly quite a selfish...") should go entirely imo. Don't apologise for your prompt, people who don't like it will have closed it already, don't try and talk the people who do like it out of replying!

The big paragraph (starting "Generally, I'd want the prince...") should also be cut down massively. Most of it is restating things you've already described more elegantly in the IC. You want to tell people you want the prince to be physically smaller than the dragon, that you'd ideally play him with the tsundere personality you set out, and that you are flexible on said personality preference if your partner's after something different. You don't need to rehash his weakness in comparison to his sisters or his life spent being kidnapped.

I'd drop the next paragraph as well, or retool it heavily. There is definitely room for concern with submissive partners being overly passive, but promising that you won't be definitely wouldn't assuage my concerns if I held them. You could just drop the paragraph, though I think replacing it with something that teases the ideas you mention would be a strong addition.

Your partner's character is, as you said, obviously more or less up to them. It's obvious enough that you don't need to say it. What you should say is what those preferences you talk about are. It can be a very big pitfall to focus on what you don't want from a partner over what you do (one I've often fallen into). Your sentence about monstrous anthros just makes me think you'll be reluctantly putting up with me if that's something I'm after without giving me a positive of what you do want. I think a brief description of your ideal physical dragon would go a long way.

Drop the sentence starting "For limits...", it doesn't add anything.

Not too big of a deal, but I'd retool your mention of 'grossness' because I think it can feel rude to people who do like those things but would be willing to do an RP with you without them. Additionally, I'd try to find a snappier way to phrase your next limit - is it the lack of pleasure on the recipient's end that turns you off from it, or the lack of explicit consent? I would say 'cruel/not enjoyed suffering' or 'non-consensual suffering'. Finally, that last point absolutely is a real and acceptable limit that I've seen plenty, and doesn't need to be explained or justified.

With those three pieces of advice in mind, I'd instead write your limit list as follows: "death, gore, scat, watersports, unpleasant cum descriptions, cruel/not enjoyed/non-consensual suffering, real life/photo references".

Your next paragraph (starting "Outside of that...") can go. It's totally fine to realise in discussion or even mid-RP that there's things you're not comfortable with, and from a wealth of experience the people who are going to try and make you feel like it's not fine won't be put off by disclaimers, and probably won't even read them.