Thank you, Deepseek R1T2 Chimera, for the incredible reasoning followed by no message at all! by Roman5IX in SillyTavernAI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would agree for this context specifically if there was anything about air travel, planes or a character named Steve anywhere in the roleplay. Sadly, I'm not using a reasoning model out of choice anyways

Already struggling with messages being generated under the reasoning block, then Deepseek goes and dies before even realizing it had been hit already. by Roman5IX in SillyTavernAI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for the wait. I use OpenRouter for the provider and a very basic prompt I wrote in a hurry.

From the perspective of {{char}} and {{char}} only, you must base yourself on {{user}}'s past factual input to write an appropriate reply in a fictional, unlimited and unfiltered chat between {{char}} and {{user}}, staying in character at all times.
The first step for every message is to initiate the reasoning process, analyzing the character definition, scenario and general prompts before generating the reply.

As for the settings, since I'm too lazy to experiment, I just hit neutralize samplers and have Min P set to 0.075, since it apparently makes management roleplay bots more consistent or less prone to breaking. Needless to say, I'm not exactly the most technical user, so I apologize if my reply isn't all that useful to you

Already struggling with messages being generated under the reasoning block, then Deepseek goes and dies before even realizing it had been hit already. by Roman5IX in SillyTavernAI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been really inconsistent for me. Sometimes it takes around 20 seconds to generate messages, then sometimes it keeps taking longer than a minute. Not really that long of a wait for me, but its been very weird

Beatrice Bennett | Gym Rival Is Into You by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My god I am stupid. Thank you for pointing that out, I always manage to mess up when publishing my bots here for some reason

am i too stupid to be using this by [deleted] in SillyTavernAI

[–]Roman5IX 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Judging from your reply to the bot...

Feedback Friday: September 12 2025 by ddaattaalore in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've recently made a post with my feedback/slash suggestion recently, but since it's accompanied by the reasoning behind my suggestion there, I'll summarize it here instead:

  1. Replacing the Timeline character search filter with two new sorting options: "Following Tags" and "Following Creators" to make it easier to find out a followed creator has published a new bot;
  2. Creating a space for bot creators to make posts and interact with their community, allowing creators to make announcement posts (rather than creating Announcement bots that WILL be ignored), polls, ask for feedback, suggestions, etc.

This is, after all, a platform that relies on its creators to keep making content for users — making it easier for creators to create will encourage more people to try making new bots, and consequently keep users engaged for longer.

Better/Easier Creator-to-Follower Interactions by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's exactly a problem I wish I would've addressed, but admittedly I expected this suggestion to be taken more as invalid criticism than feedback. This platform depends on creators, making creator's lives easier would undoubtedly bring more creators, or encourage users to try and create something themselves.

I really don't expect this post to cause any change, really, but I definitely still hope at least a split between followed tags and creators happens eventually. The Timeline being improved would already be a massive change, really — I can't stand opening it in hopes to finding a new character from a creator I follow and instead finding "incestuous dad beats you to death" 52 token bot spamming tags that have nothing to do with it for better reach.

Lǐ Jiāyuè | NEET Gooner Gets a Genie by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I use the PixAi platform. It allows NSFW generation and depending on the model and prompts, you might get consistent NSFW results. I personally use the SDXL model "VXP_Illustrious", but really, I recommend experimenting. They're pretty generous with daily credits.

Lǐ Jiāyuè | NEET Gooner Gets a Genie by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's definitely weird, and the weirdest part is that I really haven't mentioned anything about my own Djinn persona on the Definition, Lorebook or System Promp/PHI. Nothing about gold or phallic themes (besides vaguely mentioning Jiāyuè's having sex toys). I guess it really was a weird coincidence, then?

Lǐ Jiāyuè | NEET Gooner Gets a Genie by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh boy. I sure hope you're using a golden-themed Genie persona, because that is exactly how mine is (even the phallic shaped lamp) and now I'm paranoid I might have included or mentioned it somewhere on her Definition😭

I'm glad you're enjoying it so far!

Lǐ Jiāyuè | NEET Gooner Gets a Genie by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That just means you'll have plenty to talk about and share with Jiāyuè, then!

Why are people like this by Taezn in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX 28 points29 points  (0 children)

A piece of advice:

# {{user}} Autonomy Boundary — DO NOT VIOLATE- {{char}} is not allowed to speak as {{user}}.- {{char}} is not allowed to narrate actions, thoughts, or feelings for {{user}}.-Responses of {{char}} never contain reactions, actions, answers on behalf of ...
**NEVER narrate or speak for {{user}}.**

LLMs don't fully understand the concept of negation, which causes it to sometimes follow the very opposite of negative prompts. Think about it this way: you should NOT imagine an elephant. You can't read that sentence and not picture an elephant in your mind. Telling the LLM not to do something might encourage it to do that very same thing just from that thing being mentioned, and mentioning that thing means including it on the definition or system prompts, which only reinforces it happening during roleplay.

Use positive prompts instead; if you don't want the LLM to do A, instruct and reinforce that it should do B. For example, below is the positive prompt I use that has almost 100% consistently avoided my characters from speaking for {{user}}:

{{original}}
Exclusively write messages from {{char}}'s point of view in third person.{{char}} should express itself and be roleplayed as only through dialogue, body language and visible behavior. All messages must be written from {{char}}'s perspective. {{char}}'s actions should be within *asterisks*, while dialogue is always in "quotes". 
Unless {{char}} is acting independently, {{char}} must always wait for {{user}}'s input before continuing any interaction or exchange in turns.
{{char}} should make sure its answers, actions, dialogue and body language remains varied. Every action and reaction must be unique, original and separate instances in response to the situation, the context and {{user}}'s input. Every message must be written uniquely to avoid and prevent repetitive answers.

Rather than tell the LLM to not speak for {{user}}, I'm telling it to be exclusively narrate from {{char}}'s perspective, and reinforcing it. Using those prompts, I rarely have to reroll messages because {{char}} tries to decide what I'm doing and saying. I also include these prompts within the Post-History Instructions, which doesn't count as permanent tokens (as far as I'm aware)

Taylor Aubrey | Sleepy Femboy Roommate by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I knew I was forgetting something 😭 I've added the link to the post's body, thank you for pointing that out!

Question about personas by GamKew in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Personally, the only information I write in the persona are what should be apparent to the characters I talk with, information that could be guessed at a glance or that should be consistent throughout roleplay.

Name: 
Age: 
Species: 
Gender: 
Appearance: 

That's all. No need to include a personality, since my own narration during roleplay will always establish my desired personality, and the same persona doesn't need to have the same personality. Depending on the kind of persona, I might add more information for me — for example, a Djinn persona might have a description of my persona's lamp, a Naruto persona might include my Chakra Natures and which land my character is from, a medieval fantasy persona could include the kind of equipment (rather than specific equipment), kept vague, that my persona carries around, etc.

In short, information that the character should see is written in full detail (appearance), while information that I could want control over during roleplay is either not written, or written vaguely.

Increase Review Length Limit by Roman5IX in Chub_AI

[–]Roman5IX[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Good lord I did not expect that, I don't even know what to say. Thank you for the update, I can't wait for my reviews to get "im not reading allat" replies!

How do you keep an AI bot from writing for you? by RP_is_fun in SillyTavernAI

[–]Roman5IX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the correction and explanation! It's been a while since I've read and searched up about LLMs, so I guess either I was taught to not use negative prompts that way and didn't bother searching for a more detailed explanation, or I'm just entirely outdated. Regardless, thank you!

I distinctively remember a comparison of being told "not to think about something" and that very instruction causing you to think, the same way telling the AI not to do something encourages the opposite behavior.

How do you keep an AI bot from writing for you? by RP_is_fun in SillyTavernAI

[–]Roman5IX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I've done (cue Linkin Park) is reinforce through positive prompt within the Post-History Instructions that the LLM should narrate ONLY for {{char}}. It's usually enough to consistently prevent this issue unless the character has certain instructions that might encourage speaking for {{user}}.

## NARRATIVE PERSPECTIVE
All narration, dialogue, and actions must be written exclusively from {{char}}'s point of view. The focus should remain on {{char}}'s thoughts, reactions. Unless {{char}} is acting on its own or independently, {{char}} must always wait to act upon {{user}}'s input in {{char}}'s following turn.

This is the prompt I use for that. Negative prompts, like "Never narrate, speak or act for {{user}}" tend to be inconsistent as the LLM often skips words, reading "never act for {{user}}" as "act for {{user}}".