WBDaddy

This rings accurate. I think, to some extent, that once you acclimate your brain to not holding your bladder when wearing certain types of underwear, it becomes instinctual - "Oh, I'm wearing a diaper, therefore it's fine to not trigger the urinary sphincter to hold back". My babygirl sometimes forgets that she's only wearing a thin little pull-up in the mornings and not a proper diaper like she wears at night, and I chuckle as I watch her scramble off to the bathroom to get changed or comes to me all pouty and petitions me to put her in a diaper because she doesn't want to adult today.

I do hope that this alleviates the doomsayers' anxiety about abandoned stories, at least for this one.

I mean, no story could meet this definition. Even now, probably moreso than in the last 50 years since disposables became commonplace, "earth-conscious" (but ignorant) parents and "cost-conscious" parents use cloth diapers on their babies. So it's not a relic from the past. You just have to do a little extra character-building to explain why Mom or Dad or both wanted to use cloth instead of disposables. More character-building is definitely not a bad thing.

One of the greatest horror films ever made started with someone believing some jerk at a gas station that going on the back road over the mountain was faster than staying on the highway.

I've been kinda on a vintage kick with a casual story/sketch I've been working on, set in 1982. Spent a lot of time contemplating the old-school Luvs and Huggies from that time period, and imagining an alt timeline where Luvs is inspired by the success of its XL size in 1984 to pivot directly into the youth diaper market.

I know that name. Used to post his own stories in ADISC and FoxTalesTimes wayyyyy back in the day. He was a real jerk then too. Sorry you had the misfortune of doing business with him. He should've realized you were not afraid of being doxxed when you fought the first one.

I mean, I identify with the boyfriend, but only as far as I need her in a diaper to get turned on. I'm more than happy to put a Hitachi on that diaper until she begs me to stop because she's overdriving from too many orgasms at once.

High quality smut right here. Well done.

I feel like this is a case of "being your own worst critic" and not wanting to let a story go because it wasn't perfect. Let it go, write a new story, and let it take you other places. - Sincerely, someone who is continuously haunted by ghosts of his previous stories that either never got finished or never satisfied him -

I feel like I'd be piling on here, so I'll just point you to the reference guide I posted (sticky at top of this forum) about dialogue in stories. It will fix a lot of your issues here. Also, I give you kudos for not engaging in exposition about the world you seem to be building. Reveal it as you go along, keep people interested with your characters. This is the ideal way to create a new environment without explaining it all in the first chapter.

Had to go back to work full-time and, much like you, was too mentally spent to write at the end of the day. Tried to pick it back up in the years since, but I think I've only completed one story in that time frame.

When I was at my peak, so very long ago, it was about discipline. Write every day. Sit there for at least an hour in front of whatever array of unfinished stories you have in your queue. Scan them all until you find something that sparks you. Or just sit there with a blank page, if you don't have a queue. Write something. Even if you look at it an hour later and say, "this is crap," and delete it, do it anyway. Because you give yourself permission to fail, which unlocks your creativity and frees you from your self-doubt. And that is the most powerful boost to your creativity you can possibly give yourself. Writing fearlessly.

I mean, it's diaper smut. Your grammar and sentence structure are good, but this is just a scene, not a story. Not sure what feedback you're looking for here.

If said gate exists, I'll be on the outside of it most likely, because I abandoned my Christian faith many years ago in favor of an embrace of universalism (not UU) with a lean toward the Buddhist ideal. I find it deeply more satisfying than any experience I had in the Christian church. In short, over the course of 20 years I unlocked all the mysteries of the bible, plumbed all its depths, and found that the journey, much like solving a puzzle, was more fulfilling than finding the answer itself. I was left rather empty when it was done. So I moved on.

In defense of this person's story, I know people who are of Christian faith who don't hate anyone. And don't judge anyone. Though they certainly voice their very valid criticism of the Pharisees that infest the modern American church in particular. The people who co-opt what is supposed to be a religion of love and use it as a cudgel on the marginalized in society. And I know the history of how that came to pass, too, how the American church took such a turn - and the secret is, the Southern Baptist church, which is the epicenter of this movement, was always this way. It's just that once the Civil Rights Act passed, they could no longer use that cudgel against African-Americans, and instead needed new targets to rile the base and expand their political influence, so they took aim at homosexuals and anyone else that didn't fit into the one man, one woman box. And make no mistake, it's all hate, but it's also 100% contradictory to what their own book teaches them. Jesus never used a cudgel on sinners. He reserved that for pretentious religious leaders who harbored hate in their hearts while openly acting superior to everyone else because of their supposed piety. Rest assured, if the Bible is true, the Evangelicals will be surprised to find themselves being told, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

The one good part about this is that a LONG time has passed between when he paid you and when he filed the dispute. I actually think you're going to win this one, bud. NarutoABDL sounds very familiar to me; I think someone with that handle used to be (or may still be, IDK) on ADISC or maybe the old FTT forums and he was a real twat as I recall. Sorry you had to deal with this stress.

That's a cute clapback about being concise versus figuring out a solution to the problem.

It's also fair to say that English, particularly here in the US, has devolved over the last century, become more guttural and less flowery more generally. GG might be a poorly-written book due to the points you raise, but its language and sentence structure is more a product of the time in which it was written. And yeah, I can see where a LLM, having been fed all these high literature examples of English, would crank out something that reads closer to the Gettysburg Address than the way we speak English in the modern, post-corporate world.

Yeah, mostly because they look for flowery speech patterns. And as someone who used very flowery language early on in my writing experience, I would have been busted repeatedly as AI content when it was just me taking my poetry background and putting it to work in prose.

This. Emphatically. Half the work of being a writer is grinding your way through the hard parts. Using a LLM to solve those little struggles for you just opens the door for it to solve more and more of your struggles until you're not really creating anything but the idea anymore. And any idiot can have an idea. Witness the number of people who attempt to get free commissions done by asking innocently whether anyone wants to "use this idea".

I kinda feel like both AI categories are blurry as hell. And the problem is, trying to pin them down to a finer set of boundaries just encourages attempting to game the system. Either you got a chatbot involved or you didn't is the most elegant solution. If I, in a fit of frustration over writer's block, decided to dust offThe Panda's Ashes and query a chatbot to break through the wall that halted its progress so many years ago, I would willingly put it in the AI section, even if all I did was that one plot point I couldn't sort out. Because I used the bot. Doesn't matter that I only used it once in a 200k story. I used it. The only line I think I'd be okay with is if someone treated the chatbot more like bouncing ideas off a friend, trying to find inspiration for how to manage a scene, but then they went and wrote the copy entirely on their own.

I don't see why not. You're not banning them, just insisting that they, as guest co-written stories, be segregated from the Member Stories section. If ChatGPT decides to create an account here, then one could make the case that anything written with ChatGPT is still a Member co-written story and thus doesn't need to be down there.

Yeah, I similarly disagree with the analogy here. There are many, many moving parts in a film that produce art. The film is the final product, but it consists of many, many artistic contributions. From the actors, the directors, the costume designers, the soundtrack composer, the director, all of these people contribute their own art to the final product. If any of them fail, the final product fails similarly. Writing is not the same thing. If you even want to offer up co-writing as an example of multiple people being involved in the production of a book/story, great, Babypants' analogy holds up - the AI is not a member here and thus the story is not welcome in the main forum, which is member stories only. But even then, to what degree the AI is involved determines how much of the story is a human work and not just "I had an idea and didn't want to pay for a commission to a real writer."

The most hilarious part of this whole game is that this guy starts this argument in the subforum mostly comprised of serious writers who not only seek to hone their craft, but also aid each other in doing likewise both through critique and discussion, and tries to convince us all that he's not really using AI because he's using it at a micro level, even though he's still prompting everything. Which sounds fishy to me anyway, because if he was prompting every sentence, that'd take more effort than actually writing the sentence himself, because he has to type the prompt in the first place. If he's doing this to save time, it's not even remotely plausible that he'd be doing it on that micro level. Seems more to me like he's claiming that level of detail to mask the fact that he doing what everyone else does with AI and prompting to get story chunks then editing the output. But he still wants to bait and sealion us all to death about it to get tacit approval despite a virtually unanimous response. Oops, did I say that out loud? That was meant to go in a DM. My bad.

The AI subforum was provided so that authors could go by the honor system. If they used AI, put it there. If they didn't, don't. Up to you whether you want to do the honorable thing and abide by this request. If you prefer to deceive others, that's on you, bud.