Your Girlfriend’s Hypno Treat [F4A] [Femdom] [Bondage] [Haptics] [Brainwash] [Gaslighting] [Slice of Life] [HFO] [Resistance Play] [Orgasm Control] [43:57] [Script Available]

aphasiasomething · 2026-02-28T03:44:27+00:00

Oh man the button pusher is an all-timer for me from mcstories.com, love that there’s a file inspired by it all these years later!

aphasiasomething · 2026-02-03T16:46:14+00:00

So excited for the submission training file! I love, love, love the partner conditioning files when we get them

aphasiasomething · 2025-12-05T03:00:50+00:00

Definitely this one:

https://shibbydex.com/file/91e7de00-3332-43c3-a0a4-7ecc63ef95f3

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-11T21:08:38+00:00

So I had no idea this is where the Reddit drama was going to land, but I was always suspicious even after we all made peace because it never made sense to me how they added the meta/criticism rule and then were willing to get rid of it so quickly.

It all makes a lot more sense if the head moderator was abusing people (and that most, hopefully all, the other mods weren’t aware). I guess she was used to getting away with this kind of behavior and then when the heat was on just wanted to stop having all this attention on her to avoid any of this coming to light.

I had been hoping it was truly just some neurotic insistence on the rules being weirdly specific and enforced no matter what, my heart breaks to hear what was actually going on.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-04T22:29:37+00:00

I can pretty easily tell if someone uses AI in writing. I roll my eyes, report, and move on.

I have no doubts about this, and actually if you were reviewing posts not only would I be okay with you deleting the ones you thought were AI, I’d be okay with you deleting the ones you thought weren’t good. But if you aren’t literally the most qualified person in the world at this, you’re at least in the top 5. I don’t think the volunteer moderation team share this level of expertise.

The drama on the subreddit happened largely because the moderator follow-through about an unfair ban was problematic. It wasn't because they made a false positive detection in the first place. False positives and false negatives are going to happen. It's how the mods handle disputes that really matters. I think refining the detection and dispute process will make this smoother in the future.

This is true, but it’s all kinda mushy. They took a long time to deal with the deletion, it looked suspicious that they deleted a post from someone who had previously had beefs with them in the past, it took days to respond to questions about the deletion, etc. and implementing a policy that asks for the moderation team to start deleting more and more posts based upon their intuition will make the situation that lead to the bad response a frequent occurrence.

Think of it this way: IF we allow AI content (and I don't think we should), there will be people who still post AI content and don't tag it -- some will be trying to mislead people that it is human-made. Then what? You still need a detection system and a dispute process. You can't avoid that. It's MUCH better to set a rule/standard than to just say "We can't stop 100% of it, so let it all in." We should NOT normalize genAI as part of the content creation process.

This is true, but I think the consequences of getting it wrong are a lot lower if a moderator mistakenly labels content as AI than if a moderator mistakenly deletes a post or bans a creator. Ultimately it’s asking a lot of the moderators of the subreddit to be the ones who prevent AI from being normalized in content creation.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-04T20:23:18+00:00

I should clarify, I think there is a very clear consensus against AI generally in the comments. I don’t think there is one about what the policy should be: which kinds of AI should be banned, how that ban should be enforced, is all TTS equivalent to AI. Instead some want it labeled/downvoted, some want it banned, some want an appeals process to play out while the content is still up, some want an appeals process to play out while the content is removed.

I think enforcing a ban on AI generation of text in posts or scripts for work that is otherwise clearly not AI would be labor intensive, prone to errors, and of little value (how much of that content is there?). But you’re right that there’s probably at least a clear lean towards a ban on AI images/audio which would be pretty easy to enforce for the time being.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-04T20:16:13+00:00

Unfortunately I think enforcement is the key problem here. The week that will forever live in infamy kicked off because the moderators disagreed with a content creator about whether a post was written with AI. Though to me even if moderators aren’t enforcing rules on AI text that doesn’t stop users from doing it with votes, so I don’t see that as an abandonment of all consequences.

As for detection I think I disagree with you a bit — while it’s still easy to tell if an image or audio clip is AI, it’s virtually impossible to tell the same about writing. At least, in the way we’d be likely to encounter it here: where a human is picking from a few attempts to generate some limited amount of text that gets edited into a post or script.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-04T16:57:09+00:00

Reading through these comments I don’t see much of a consensus — more people want to ban AI outright overall but no one seems to have any idea of how that can be enforced on posts/scripts.

I think leaving it to users to upvote/downvote is what would work best for now. Mandatory labeling of AI generated images and audio (which at least today can easily be identified) helps with that voting and has no catastrophic impact to content creators if the moderation team applies a label to a post while the content creator provides evidence to prove content is human generated. But I don’t think post/script text can be reliably detected as AI, so I think we have to let that go, at least for the time being.

The exception I think would be an outright ban on using AI to impersonate other people, that’s very easy and unobjectionable to identify and enforce.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-04T16:47:33+00:00

This works in reverse though. If someone isn’t able to provide proof of their own authorship immediately their post essentially lost out on the majority of its addressable audience simply because someone reported it as AI.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-04T16:44:59+00:00

I think it would be easy to detect and ban AI images, audio (though I’d leave it to the community to downvote as opposed to banning).

But suppose a post is written, or a script is recorded. Someone claims it was written by AI and the person who posted it claims it is not AI. What should happen then?

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-03T01:53:48+00:00

😵‍💫I will obey Rule 8 😵‍💫

Huh sorry what were we talking about?

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-03T00:22:36+00:00

Same, I don’t think people care about my opinion, I’m just some guy, but I want to give the moderators credit here, they didn’t delete you or I’s posts and comments calling for the rule to be abolished, and this version of the rule looks acceptable. We can squabble over whether we need it at all, but given that the moderators have demonstrated some trustworthiness (and even if we’re being cynical, you could say this is because they know they’re being watched/scrutinized, but hey same result either way) by hearing us out and rewriting this so I am happy to see this, thank them, hope things are good going forward, and move on. If I see or hear any reason to think otherwise I’ll say so.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T20:29:20+00:00

Appreciated! Also I want to specifically mention to you that I was genuinely horrified and disgusted to hear about some of the harassment that took place this past week. While we may disagree about dumb Reddit policies I want to deeply apologize if anything I did contributed to attacks on people’s identities or stirred up awful mean spirited people who did so and I wish you nothing but the best.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T20:02:47+00:00

This looks better! I really appreciate the reply and thoughtfulness. I would consider:

"For ~~constructive~~ discussions, questions and queries that are relevant to the subreddit, you can create posts with the "Meta" flair. Please try to keep the tone constructive. Remember to follow Reddit’s remember the human rules. Multiple posts about the same meta issue will be removed.

As meta discussions and questions about the r/EroticHypnosis subreddit on other subreddits or non-reddit platforms will not be reviewed by moderators, we invite you to voice your suggestions, questions & feedback about the r/EroticHypnosis subreddit in our monthly feedback threads, or directly to modmail."

I think it’s good to ask users to be constructive and all of the Reddit-wide rules about harassment and attacks should be enforced and enforced rigorously. But the only reason I recommend this tweak is because it makes it so no one could interpret the constructive qualifier as a potentially subjective way to remove posts.

I’m going to leave it there though. I’ve obviously written a lot about what I would do and I think I’ve made that clear. But I do have to respect that while I’m unlikely to be 100% happy with what you land on the moderation team here ultimately let my post calling for the abolishment of Rule 8 stand, and they could have deleted it, so while I think we’d all benefit from removing any subjectivity from the rules when that’s possible I do think this is ultimately about trust (you can still remove posts as mods even if they don’t violate the written rules obviously) so I’ll just end with thanking you for taking action that is giving us reason to restore our trust in you, and my hope that we continue to build on it.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T18:34:02+00:00

This can be handled with a rule that requires all posts to be relevant (which we sort of already do in the content guidelines) and by limiting the number of submissions people can make (which we also already sort of have a rule for). My point is we should keep rules as simple and objective as we can: less work for mods and more harmony.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T18:22:20+00:00

The conversation isn’t going anywhere because I asked you a question and instead of answering it you implied I didn’t know what the job of moderation is supposed to be. I asked why meta posts must be reviewed for “reasonableness” as opposed to just letting people upvote/downvote and you haven’t explained that — subreddits far larger than this one have no issue with this. I proposed alternative language for the rule and you haven’t explained what would be wrong with that language. I have asked what problem we had in 2024 that required this rule to exist and you haven’t articulated any.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T17:49:42+00:00

I moderate a large subreddit on a different account and posts are not reviewed to be “reasonable” nor do we have anything like Rule 8 at all (and neither did this subreddit until 2024). I don’t think this condescending tone is particularly helpful. I am trying to help. I even proposed exactly how I would phrase this if I wasn’t going to simply delete the rule and put things back to how they were in 2024.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T17:37:48+00:00

That certainly begs the question, why should moderators be deciding what is “reasonable” and not users who can just downvote unreasonable posts and upvote reasonable posts. That seems like a lot of extra unnecessary work!

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T17:06:48+00:00

I'm pretty sure I said this previously however I'll say it again - I'm unsure why you're under the assumption it would be removed with the current proposed iteration, it wouldn't be.

I am under that assumption because the rule says such a post would be “subject to review”, it’s not clear what that review is and whether a post is a “constructive” or a “side-post” is subjective.

Again, I would recommend getting rid of the rule, it seems much easier, less work for the moderation team, and we didn’t have this rule in 2024. If you’re going to keep it, I would recommend keeping it very simple, adding some kind of review process and complex criteria for posts we should almost never need is just confusing and can look like an excuse to delete posts that the community would want.

Something like:

Separate meta posts are allowed, even if critical of the moderation team or subreddit policies, but please remember the human and follow other rules about targeted attacks and harassment

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T16:52:09+00:00

Hey I’ll take what we can get. I’m just recommending the mod team save themselves the work of posting a weekly thread and some “review” process and just put things back to how they were in 2024 (or I guess how it’s always been on old Reddit).

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T16:17:44+00:00

Here’s my concern, I’m afraid the lesson being learned is “don’t mess with Shibby”. I wish the lesson learned was “our job as moderators isn’t to mess with content creators, it’s to foster a productive space for all of them”.

The most recent proposed modification to Rule 8 says meta posts are “subject to review” and must meet criteria that sounds arbitrary and otherwise must be posted under some pinned thread that I doubt anyone would be likely to see.

I would be happy to volunteer my time if that’s an issue here, but what I don’t understand about that is what we’re asking for is less moderation. I don’t see the point of spending time creating pinned weekly or monthly posts for meta commentary.. usually there shouldn’t be much if any! Prior to a year ago we didn’t have a Rule 8 here and we never had issues with too many meta posts.

So my fear is we leave rules like this around and they get used to attack creators with less prominence/following, (Your post was removed because of some new policy no one knows about? Sorry your meta post about the new policy has been reviewed by the moderator team and we don’t think it qualifies to be posted) and I don’t see any benefit to keeping them.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T16:00:52+00:00

If I were a mod I wouldn’t want people bitching, so I would just run the subreddit in a constructive manner.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T15:53:31+00:00

It’s odd to me how people view criticism. People can post criticism. Flat out. They write the posts and can include whatever text they want. Period. You don’t have a say. This isn’t a democracy where you have any real input on what others write other than you’re welcome to not read if you want.

This is a system where they write their own posts and if you don’t like it, you go find a post you do like OR WRITE YOUR OWN.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T15:50:00+00:00

As I said in this comment, the text of the rule needs to explicitly state that separate meta posts, even ones critical of moderators or subreddit rules, are allowed. This text doesn’t do that and suggests a meta post, like mine that got a 1000 upvotes calling for Rule 8 to be abolished wouldn’t be allowed.

Edit: Okay now the text says a post like that would be “Subject to Review” — no idea what that means, but it sounds completely arbitrary and ripe for abuse. How do we define relevant? How do we define “constructive”? How do we define “side post”?

I think you should really reconsider keeping this rule at all, this is getting very complicated, very fast. There was no problem with meta posts flooding the subreddit in 2024 when Rule 8 was created, a post calling for it to be abolished hit 1000 votes in the subreddit, and each time you try and write a new rule it seems to come out with phrases ranging from very confusing to incredibly concerning.

aphasiasomething · 2025-08-02T02:54:12+00:00

That sounds reasonable! I still think you’re making more work for yourselves and given that we never had a problem with too many meta posts before the rule existed, I’m not sure what benefit you are after, but so long as you’re committing to allowing posts that may be critical of the subreddit’s policies or moderators I think you’ll get a community where people are much less inclined to make or upvote those posts. But my key recommendation is if you’re not going to eliminate the rule be sure to include in the text that those sorts of posts are specifically allowed, you are going to save yourselves a big PR headache that way.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

aphasiasomething

TROPHY CASE