For some reason, this post crashes my mobile app. It could be the huge resolution of the bonus images?
I do appreciate the efficient compression though :)

The player could describe what they saw, but nobody except the GM knows if it’s true.

It’s equally plausible that the paladin failed the check and saw a monster when there was only a dog, or that they passed the check and saw a monster because there was in fact a monster. Their argument to the party would be the same in either case: “that’s no dog, it’s a space station monster”.

The party then must question who saw the correct thing. Did the paladin actually see something everyone else missed? Or are they just seeing things? My point was that the players should not immediately be able to discern the truth. I find that this kind of uncertainty breeds intrigue!

I’ve never actually played, so this might be standard practice anyway, but I think this would be a great time to have the DM roll privately for each player and not tell them if they passed or failed. If the players only know what their character saw (and not if they pass or fail the check, or even get an idea based on the roll) then metagaming is impossible. This could produce a situation where it’s just a dog but the paladin thinks they saw a monster because they failed the roll, or it could be the other way around.
Doing it with DM-only rolls ensures the players have to actually figure out what they saw rather than knowing based on what they rolled or if they passed.

As I said, this could be standard practice, I have no idea. But I hope it is.

Peekaboo

I wanted to see if I could get any results with a slightly different prompt. I think the body shapes are better but it seems to be lacking the softer style of your gen, which I think I prefer. Mine looks like any old gen in a sea of other gens.

masterpiece, high quality, negative_hand, a group of beautiful little 8yo girls, multiple girls, (loli:1.2), wearing pantyhose, topless, tiny breasts, flat chest, blushing, happy, legs, {blonde|brown|pink|platinum} hair, (stylized:0.7), (digital art:0.7).
Negative prompt: easynegative,  negative_hand-neg, badhandv4, Unspeakable-Horrors-24v, skirt, mature, adult, portrait, animal ears, (1girl:1.2), large breasts, big boobs.
Steps: 40, Sampler: DPM++ 2M Karras, CFG scale: 7, Seed: 2, Size: 768x512, Model hash: 812cd9f9d9, Model: Anything-V3.0-pruned-fp16, Denoising strength: 0.6, Clip skip: 4, Hires upscale: 2, Hires upscaler: Latent, TI hashes: "negative_hand: 73b524a2da12", Version: v1.5.1

Honorable mention for when I forgot to add “standing up” but it worked pretty nicely anyway.

masterpiece, high quality, negative_hand, a group of beautiful little 8yo girls, standing up, pinup, multiple girls, (loli:1.2), wearing pantyhose, topless, tiny breasts, flat chest, blushing, happy, (legs:1.2), full body shot, {blonde|brown|pink|platinum} hair, (stylized:0.7), (digital art:0.7).
Negative prompt: easynegative, negative_hand-neg, badhandv4, Unspeakable-Horrors-24v, skirt, mature, (adult:1.2), (teen:1.1), portrait, animal ears, (1girl:1.2), large breasts, big boobs.
Steps: 40, Sampler: DPM++ 2M Karras, CFG scale: 7, Seed: 3317893774, Size: 768x512, Model hash: 812cd9f9d9, Model: Anything-V3.0-pruned-fp16, Denoising strength: 0.6, Clip skip: 4, Hires upscale: 2, Hires upscaler: Latent, TI hashes: "negative_hand: 73b524a2da12", Version: v1.5.1

I think their bodies are a little too long for their legs too. Usually legs are roughly half a person’s height, I think?

I spent 2 months looking for a music video I swear I’d watched. YouTube’s watch history did not help at all, not to mention it would sometimes break while scrolling so I couldn’t get that far.

I finally found it by exporting my Google Takeout data, selecting only YouTube data, and then loading the watch history file in a text editor and searching for things like “music video” and “official video”. I found it in about 2 minutes.

Giving “Feddit” a whole new meaning

By 3D do you mean real? Or would you include 3D animation in that definition?

The hardest choices require the strongest wills…

Jokes on them, my copy of Windows borked its own update system before it could even install that patch! 😎

Yeah, people vilify you for even considering that it might not be as bad as everyone says it is.
I’ll probably just turn it into a meme later.

The analogy I like to use is that you can draw a girl and say she’s 18 and that’s fine, but use the exact same drawing and say she’s 17 and everyone loses their shit.

I suppose it depends on the type of media. In this context I would define tags as categories that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, rather than something like booru-style tags. As you said, tags like that in a title would get very messy very quickly, so they should probably go in the body text.

My community, BeastClub, has the animal type as a tag at the beginning so people can immediately know what’s in each image. Multiple animal types can be in one image so multiple tags are sometimes necessary. In my case, the title of the art means very little, and can even be totally irrelevant! Of course, this doesn’t apply to every community. Music communities, for example, place much greater importance on the title than mine does. That example alone proves there is no one-size-fits-all solution here.

It might get stifling to try and enforce a certain tag system site wide

Absolutely. Plus, not every community needs/wants tags.

The way I’ve done mine is that including tags is just a guideline. Rather than a rule it’s more of a “if you’re a decent person you’ll take 5 seconds to do this” kinda thing. In a way, I’m hoping that trusting community members to “do the right thing” will help foster some sense of unity, in that everyone helps make the community better and easier to navigate/use for everyone.

Having a this would be nice. If/when real tags get added to Lemmy in the future, a common standard would easily allow a script to be run to convert text tags into real ones.

My personal choice (for art) is something like this:

[Tag1] [Tag2] Post Title (Artist Name)

To extract a tag from this format you could use a regex like this: \[([^\[\]]+)\] +? which, when you look at the first capture, should be the content of the each tag.

I meant that the size doesn’t matter to me as long as the shape is good. They can be nonexistent or they can be massive, as long as they have a nice shape then I like them.

Sorry if my wording was confusing!

I’d absolutely have to find them attractive. I know people can look past physical attributes if their partner’s personality is great, and that’s fine, I just don’t feel like I can do that. To me, romance (and sex, of course) is a pretty big part of a relationship, and if I can’t look at her and go “wow she’s cute” (or something along those lines), then it just isn’t going to work for me.

She should also need to have her own identity. Not gender identity, fuck that, I mean she’s her own person with her own goals and opinions etc. Someone who I can actually talk to and joke around and hang out with, someone who fits in with my friend group, not just with me.

And if I had to be shallow and pick a physical attribute or two: slim body, and breast shape >>>>> breast size. They can be the size of space hoppers or look like two skittles on an ironing board, as long as the shape is good then I’m happy!

I don’t like lettuce on my burgers. Every time I’ve had it it’s just soggy and wet and it’s been ruined for me.

“I used the riches to tax the riches”