Drugs and Alcohol

Bramblethorn said:

"OK boomer" is a standard response to a specific kind of boomer... usually in response to a broad-brush comment about younger generations. As it was here.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Thanks, BT.

electricblue66 said:

...

Click to expand...

TLDR.

Black_and_White_Writer said:

Ah Nixon and Vietnam, their shadows are long and just as toxic as ever. At least with the pandemic silencing other noise out a lot of the US’s problems are out in the open and can be fixed and redressed – finally.

No matter your political allegiance, progress marches on and the truth always comes out, as surely as the seas ebb and flow and the sun rises and sets, it’s only fools who’d try to impede either.

Click to expand...

That’s a meditation for the worthiest hearts and minds; a truth to graft to our very bones

SimonDoom said:

After several years of contributing stories and participating in these forums here it never ceases to amaze me that readers come to this erotic story website to indulge their various kinks, some of which are quite odd, yet get completely freaked out by something like pot use. Human beings are weird.

Click to expand...

You'll find people who are against almost anything. There are religious people who won't drink coffee or other caffeinated beverages. They are not necessarily "wrong."

Disclaimers are tricky. Sometimes I'm against them; sometimes I give away upcoming plot points. People get offended about the most minor thing sometimes. We live in a time of polarized opinions and intense sensitivity about certain issues.

Dinged for using ecstasy in erotica.

I've posted parts 1 & 2 of a four part story. The first part did very well in the ratings. I provided a warning that includes, "The foolishness of youth is at play, and there is experimentation with drugs."

In part one, the main character is tricked into thinking they were given their first experience with ecstasy. At the end of part 1 it is revealed that the whole thing was a 'placebo effect'. I received several comments and messages from readers saying how glad they were that there was no actual drug use.

In part two they actually go for it. I provide a conversation about the benefits and dangers of the drug and do my best to accurately describe the feelings I have while on it. I think I did pretty well.

Part one was 4.82 with more than 130 votes until part 2 was posted, then it fell to 4.74. Part 2, with the drug use has mostly been just under 4.7.

Is it right to think of it that:

* a score of 4.8 means that, on average, 4 out of 5 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.
* a score of 4.75 means that, on average, 3 out of 4 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.

I'm sure that it's possible that readers liked part one better but were so disappointed with part 2 that it brought the whole thing down, but it just seemed odd to me.

Maybe it could be said that 1 one out of 5 readers of TG/CD fiction prefer characters who 'just say no.' Pansexual fucking and sucking is fine, just keep it sober? Fortunately I don't care too much about the ratings, though it was nice to have my first real story in or near the top 100 list.

I was surprised. I'm guessing that a lot of my good score was due to reader attrition for a long piece, but it still seems strange that part one went down only after the shenanigans of part 2.

AlexBailey said:

I received several comments and messages from readers saying how glad they were that there was no actual drug use.

Click to expand...

I pretty much encourage these people to go read someplace else. Not that I include rampant drug use in my stories, but the readers I want aren't this anal retentive. I want them to want to let loose with their fantasies. I don't write to cater to these readers.

A significant plot point of Messy was the main character becoming a better (or at least more introspective/considerate) human being after a tragedy, and part of that entailed ditching most alcohol use, after a period of abuse.

3 Weeks On The Road referenced another character having struggled with alcohol abuse in the past, and being forcibly limited to a certain level of alcohol and tobacco consumption in the present. One character also abused alcohol during a period of stress.

Jessie saw those same characters drink socially, or abuse alcohol/tobacco for stress related reasons. The main character also buys heroin as a painkiller/method of suicide.

The current book I'm working on (a prequel to all of the above) shows the main character falling into alcohol abuse, then rising above it.

People drink. They have since it was discovered that aging fruit juice made you act silly. If you want to write a realistic story, it's something that could conceivably come up - either as a plot point or as a detail about the characters.

AlexBailey said:

I've posted parts 1 & 2 of a four part story. The first part did very well in the ratings. I provided a warning that includes, "The foolishness of youth is at play, and there is experimentation with drugs."

In part one, the main character is tricked into thinking they were given their first experience with ecstasy. At the end of part 1 it is revealed that the whole thing was a 'placebo effect'. I received several comments and messages from readers saying how glad they were that there was no actual drug use.

In part two they actually go for it. I provide a conversation about the benefits and dangers of the drug and do my best to accurately describe the feelings I have while on it. I think I did pretty well.

Part one was 4.82 with more than 130 votes until part 2 was posted, then it fell to 4.74. Part 2, with the drug use has mostly been just under 4.7.

Is it right to think of it that:

* a score of 4.8 means that, on average, 4 out of 5 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.
* a score of 4.75 means that, on average, 3 out of 4 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.

I'm sure that it's possible that readers liked part one better but were so disappointed with part 2 that it brought the whole thing down, but it just seemed odd to me.

Maybe it could be said that 1 one out of 5 readers of TG/CD fiction prefer characters who 'just say no.' Pansexual fucking and sucking is fine, just keep it sober? Fortunately I don't care too much about the ratings, though it was nice to have my first real story in or near the top 100 list.

I was surprised. I'm guessing that a lot of my good score was due to reader attrition for a long piece, but it still seems strange that part one went down only after the shenanigans of part 2.

Click to expand...

I think you can have all sorts of combinations of scores to get to those numbers. You could have mostly five stars and a few one stars or you could have a more even mix of fours and fives, heavier on the fives.

Complicating the matter this time around, there has been some sort of ongoing major sweep. I don't know if you kept an eye on the vote totals with any regularity to know if they might have gone down, but there could be fluctuation from that.

It seems doubtful to me that readers held off on rating Chapter 1 until after they had seen Chapter 2, so I'd guess that the drop for Chapter 1 was coincidental to the release of Chapter 2. It might have just been at the same time as sweeps messed with your score.

These are just guesses, of course. Some readers definitely will rate your story based on whether they like the content, in addition to or instead of what's in your writing. That much, I know for sure.

Those are still very good ratings. Congratulations on them.

AlexBailey said:

I've posted parts 1 & 2 of a four part story. The first part did very well in the ratings. I provided a warning that includes, "The foolishness of youth is at play, and there is experimentation with drugs."

In part one, the main character is tricked into thinking they were given their first experience with ecstasy. At the end of part 1 it is revealed that the whole thing was a 'placebo effect'. I received several comments and messages from readers saying how glad they were that there was no actual drug use.

In part two they actually go for it. I provide a conversation about the benefits and dangers of the drug and do my best to accurately describe the feelings I have while on it. I think I did pretty well.

Part one was 4.82 with more than 130 votes until part 2 was posted, then it fell to 4.74. Part 2, with the drug use has mostly been just under 4.7.

Is it right to think of it that:

* a score of 4.8 means that, on average, 4 out of 5 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.
* a score of 4.75 means that, on average, 3 out of 4 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.

I'm sure that it's possible that readers liked part one better but were so disappointed with part 2 that it brought the whole thing down, but it just seemed odd to me.

Maybe it could be said that 1 one out of 5 readers of TG/CD fiction prefer characters who 'just say no.' Pansexual fucking and sucking is fine, just keep it sober? Fortunately I don't care too much about the ratings, though it was nice to have my first real story in or near the top 100 list.

I was surprised. I'm guessing that a lot of my good score was due to reader attrition for a long piece, but it still seems strange that part one went down only after the shenanigans of part 2.

Click to expand...

It's impossible to say for sure, and it's probably not worth noodling over.


Scores based on 130 votes usually are fairly stable, so a drop from 4.82 to 4.74 is fairly high. It's likely some eliminated scores were the product of sweeps. Also, a score of 4.82 is very high, and it's probable that some of the lowering is simply a reversion to the mean.

AlexBailey said:

Part one was 4.82 with more than 130 votes until part 2 was posted, then it fell to 4.74. Part 2, with the drug use has mostly been just under 4.7.

Is it right to think of it that:

* a score of 4.8 means that, on average, 4 out of 5 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.
* a score of 4.75 means that, on average, 3 out of 4 ratings were 5-star, while one was 4-star.

I'm sure that it's possible that readers liked part one better but were so disappointed with part 2 that it brought the whole thing down, but it just seemed odd to me.

Click to expand...

FWIW, for a story in the neighbourhood of 4.8, and 130 votes, you can expect random variation to create 'noise' of about +/- 0.07 in your score. I wouldn't be surprised if some readers did downvote due to drug content, but I agree with Simon that sweeps and regression to the mean are probably part of the picture here.

(For those unfamiliar with the term: "regression/reversion to the mean" basically means that when you see a particularly extreme result, either good or bad, it's likely that part of that result is due to chance, and in time the result is likely to move back towards the average as your luck changes.)

Bramblethorn said:

FWIW, for a story in the neighbourhood of 4.8, and 130 votes, you can expect random variation to create 'noise' of about +/- 0.07 in your score.

Click to expand...

I somehow missed this the first time around. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm curious. How did you come to that conclusion?

Bramblethorn said:

FWIW, for a story in the neighbourhood of 4.8, and 130 votes, you can expect random variation to create 'noise' of about +/- 0.07 in your score. I wouldn't be surprised if some readers did downvote due to drug content, but I agree with Simon that sweeps and regression to the mean are probably part of the picture here.

Click to expand...

NotWise said:

I somehow missed this the first time around. I'm not disagreeing, but I'm curious. How did you come to that conclusion?

Click to expand...

Simplifying assumptions:

1. Each story has some sort of underlying "true score" and if you let the voting run forever, the average would converge to that score. (But we can never observe what that score really is - we just get an approximation from a finite number of votes.)
2. Ignore the possibility of 1-3 votes, assume that all the votes are either 4s or 5s. (Probably a reasonable approximation for a story in the high 4s, after sweeps.)
3. Assume votes are IID - basically, assume each vote is completely independent of every other, and of when it happens - ignoring scenarios like "one person votes repeatedly" where knowing the outcome of vote n gives you some information about vote n+1.

Under that assumption, you can use binomial distribution results to describe distribution.

Let X be the total number of stars received from n votes (so your score is X/n).

Let p be the probability of getting a 5 on any single vote. (Under assumption #2 above, p = "true score" minus 4.)

Then the variance for X is n*p*(1-p) and the standard deviation for X is sqrt(n*p*(1-p)).

Since the story score is x/n, the standard deviation for scores is sqrt(n*p*(1-p))/n = sqrt(p*(1-p)/n)

Substitute in n=130, p=0.8, and you get a standard deviation of 0.035. For large n, the distribution approaches a normal distribution, which then means the observed score will fall within 2 SDs of the true score about 95% of the time.

Hence, if the "true score" is 4.80, at the point where you get 130 votes there's about a 95% probability that the score you see will be between 4.73 and 4.87.

From there, if you quadruple the number of votes you halve the standard deviation, so at 520 votes you'd expect it to be within about +/- 0.035 of the long-term mean.

Bramblethorn said:

Simplifying assumptions:

1. Each story has some sort of underlying "true score" and if you let the voting run forever, the average would converge to that score. (But we can never observe what that score really is - we just get an approximation from a finite number of votes.)
2. Ignore the possibility of 1-3 votes, assume that all the votes are either 4s or 5s. (Probably a reasonable approximation for a story in the high 4s, after sweeps.)
3. Assume votes are IID - basically, assume each vote is completely independent of every other, and of when it happens - ignoring scenarios like "one person votes repeatedly" where knowing the outcome of vote n gives you some information about vote n+1.

Click to expand...

I see. Thanks.

Weed use is legal here in Canada, where most of my stories take place, and I've had characters get absolutely wrecked with alcohol. It's never been an issue.

I don't think I've ever shown a character who was a minor drunk or high, but I've had characters reference such events in their own lives. It's sorta like a character saying they've had sex before they were eighteen- you can say it happened, just don't show it, and leave out the gory details.

I just include tags that mention alcohol or drug use. That way a reader can choose, just in case it's a trigger for them.

Bramblethorn said:

Substitute in n=130, p=0.8, and you get a standard deviation of 0.035. For large n, the distribution approaches a normal distribution, which then means the observed score will fall within 2 SDs of the true score about 95% of the time.

Hence, if the "true score" is 4.80, at the point where you get 130 votes there's about a 95% probability that the score you see will be between 4.73 and 4.87.

From there, if you quadruple the number of votes you halve the standard deviation, so at 520 votes you'd expect it to be within about +/- 0.035 of the long-term mean.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you feel about it, but probability has always seemed strange to me -- almost counterintuitive. I took a class on statistics years ago and learned all about standard deviation and bell curves, and yet somehow, intuitively, it doesn't seem right that the data in fact does conform to a standard distribution.

Are you familar with the "Monty Hall" problem, where a person has to choose from among three doors, behind one of which is a prize? The answer is so non-intuitive that even mathematicians get it wrong, although when you actually do the math there is no doubt that the answer is correct.

SimonDoom said:

I don't know how you feel about it, but probability has always seemed strange to me -- almost counterintuitive. I took a class on statistics years ago and learned all about standard deviation and bell curves, and yet somehow, intuitively, it doesn't seem right that the data in fact does conform to a standard distribution.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Central Limit Theorem is a weird thing. But there are weirder things out there...

Let's suppose I have four dice, each of them an evenly balanced cube but with non-standard numbering:

BLUE: 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3
YELLOW: 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 6
GREEN: 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5
RED: 0, 0, 4, 4, 4, 4

We each pick one die and roll them, and the highest number wins. Because you're less familiar with the game, I'll even let you choose first - which die would you choose?

Are you familar with the "Monty Hall" problem, where a person has to choose from among three doors, behind one of which is a prize? The answer is so non-intuitive that even mathematicians get it wrong, although when you actually do the math there is no doubt that the answer is correct.

Click to expand...

That's a famous one, and the underlying concept (conditional probability) is tremendously important.

It is a tricky problem, but that's not solely due to people being bad at probability. Most of the times I've seen the MHP it's been ambiguously worded, with the "correct" answer depending on one particular interpretation of that ambiguity.

If the player knows that Monty will always reveal an empty door after they make their initial choice, then switching choices is the correct answer. Likewise, if he has to choose whether he's going to reveal an empty door before the player makes their initial choice.

But if Monty gets to make that decision after the player makes their initial pick, it's a different ball game and "change doors" isn't always the correct answer.

Bramblethorn said:

Simplifying assumptions:

1. Each story has some sort of underlying "true score" and if you let the voting run forever, the average would converge to that score. (But we can never observe what that score really is - we just get an approximation from a finite number of votes.)
2. Ignore the possibility of 1-3 votes, assume that all the votes are either 4s or 5s. (Probably a reasonable approximation for a story in the high 4s, after sweeps.)
3. Assume votes are IID - basically, assume each vote is completely independent of every other, and of when it happens - ignoring scenarios like "one person votes repeatedly" where knowing the outcome of vote n gives you some information about vote n+1.

Click to expand...

I've put an inordinate amount of time into this, but curiosity is a powerful force.

The voting process is multinomial rather than binomial. The binomial approximation is good for very high-scoring or low-scoring stories, but it fails in between. By my estimates, even a story with a score of 4.8 and a significant number of votes should have votes of three or lower, which violates the binomial assumption.

I've looked at the distribution of votes on my stories, and have a simple model for the distribution; the number of votes in one category is in a constant ratio to the votes in next highest category. This applies best to stories that have been swept.

I can put those numbers into a multinomial distribution, and I can figure out the variance for votes of 1,2,3,4 or 5, but I haven't figured out how to set an error range on the mean.

Got any pointers for me?

NotWise said:

I've put an inordinate amount of time into this, but curiosity is a powerful force.

The voting process is multinomial rather than binomial. The binomial approximation is good for very high-scoring or low-scoring stories, but it fails in between. By my estimates, even a story with a score of 4.8 and a significant number of votes should have votes of three or lower, which violates the binomial assumption.

I've looked at the distribution of votes on my stories, and have a simple model for the distribution; the number of votes in one category is in a constant ratio to the votes in next highest category. This applies best to stories that have been swept.

I can put those numbers into a multinomial distribution, and I can figure out the variance for votes of 1,2,3,4 or 5, but I haven't figured out how to set an error range on the mean.

Got any pointers for me?

Click to expand...

I think Bramblethorn understands the math better than I do, but I think what she's saying is that it probably doesn't matter. Once you have 130 votes, assuming all the votes are 4s and 5s will yield a result just as accurate as taking into account the 1s and 2s and 3s, and it's a whole lot simpler to calculate.

If you know the number of votes and you know the number of total stars, I'm not sure it makes any difference how many stars one can cast per vote. That's more true the higher the number of votes.

The general rule is that the higher the number of votes the smaller the variance and SD. You can be fairly confident that the score you have is close to the hypothetical "accurate" score if every possible reader read your story and voted on it.

This tracks my observation, because I have some incest stories with views in the thousands and the score never, or almost never, changes.

NotWise said:

I've put an inordinate amount of time into this, but curiosity is a powerful force.

The voting process is multinomial rather than binomial. The binomial approximation is good for very high-scoring or low-scoring stories, but it fails in between. By my estimates, even a story with a score of 4.8 and a significant number of votes should have votes of three or lower, which violates the binomial assumption.

I've looked at the distribution of votes on my stories, and have a simple model for the distribution; the number of votes in one category is in a constant ratio to the votes in next highest category. This applies best to stories that have been swept.

I can put those numbers into a multinomial distribution, and I can figure out the variance for votes of 1,2,3,4 or 5, but I haven't figured out how to set an error range on the mean.

Got any pointers for me?

Click to expand...

If I've understood correctly, your model is that for a given story, Pr(5)/Pr(4) = Pr(4)/Pr(3) etc. where "Pr(X)" is shorthand for "probability that any given vote is X stars".

Let that ratio be k. Then for X in {1,2,3,4,5},

Pr(X) = (k^(x-1))*(k-1)/(k^5-1)

For the special case k=1, interpret (k-1)/(k^5-1) as 1/5.

The mean score is then:

M(k)=(k-1)(1+2*k+3*k^2+4*k^3+5*k^4)/(k^5-1)

Variance for a single vote is easiest calculated as E(vote^2)-E(vote)^2 where E is expected value. E(vote) is just M(k). E(vote^2) equals:

(k-1)(1+4*k+9*k^2+16*k^3+25*k^4)/(k^5-1)

Plugging those numbers in, you then get something like this:

k mean variance variance_binomial
0.0 1.00 0.00 --
0.1 1.11 0.12 --
0.2 1.25 0.30 --
0.3 1.42 0.55 --
0.4 1.61 0.85 --
0.5 1.84 1.17 --
0.8 2.56 1.88 --
1.0 3.00 2.00 --
2.0 4.16 1.17 --
3.0 4.52 0.65 0.25
4.0 4.67 0.42 0.22
5.0 4.75 0.30 0.19
6.0 4.80 0.24 0.16
8.0 4.86 0.16 0.12
10.0 4.89 0.12 0.10
20.0 4.95 0.06 0.05

For the last few columns I've included the variance that you'd get using the binomial version that I posted. At a mean of 4.80, your version gives a variance of 0.24 and mine gives 0.16.

The standard deviation in the mean you observe, after n votes have been recorded, will then be sqrt(variance/n). For a sufficiently large n (rule of thumb, enough for about 30 non-5 votes) you can estimate a 95% confidence interval as +/- 2*stdev.

For a mean of 4.80 and 130 votes, that would work out as 4.71 to 4.89 by your model, or 4.73 to 4.87 by mine - bit of a difference but not huge.

I don't think either of those models are perfect. For example, controversial stories might get a "bathtub curve" of votes - lots of high and low with not much in between. The binomial version has a couple of things going for it:

- the maths is simpler (and I'm lazy)
- it has the lowest variance of any possible model, for given mean and n (under IID assumptions), so it gives a lower bound on that confidence interval - even if you don't think it's the best model, you know the CI is *at least* that wide.

Bramblethorn said:

If the player knows that Monty will always reveal an empty door after they make their initial choice, then switching choices is the correct answer. Likewise, if he has to choose whether he's going to reveal an empty door before the player makes their initial choice.

But if Monty gets to make that decision after the player makes their initial pick, it's a different ball game and "change doors" isn't always the correct answer.

Click to expand...

But isn't it obvious that Monty will reveal an empty door? Monty isn't going to reveal a door with the prize. That gives away the game. It's obvious, too, I think, that Monty knows what's behind all the doors.

So regardless which door one picks, Monty will always pick one of the remaining doors that does NOT have the prize. And that's why it makes sense to switch one's choice.

SimonDoom said:

I think Bramblethorn understands the math better than I do, but I think what she's saying is that it probably doesn't matter. Once you have 130 votes, assuming all the votes are 4s and 5s will yield a result just as accurate as taking into account the 1s and 2s and 3s, and it's a whole lot simpler to calculate.

Click to expand...

It does make some difference. A distribution that's 90% 5s and 10% 3s has the same mean as one that's 80% 5s and 20% 4s, but the former has about twice the variance, which then means about 40% more error in the score at a given vote count (because there's a square-root involved).

The higher the score, the smaller the difference, so I guess the moral is write fantastic stories to keep the maths easy

SimonDoom said:

But isn't it obvious that Monty will reveal an empty door? Monty isn't going to reveal a door with the prize. That gives away the game. It's obvious, too, I think, that Monty knows what's behind all the doors.

So regardless which door one picks, Monty will always pick one of the remaining doors that does NOT have the prize. And that's why it makes sense to switch one's choice.

Click to expand...

But do I know that Monty was committed to opening any door at all?

If I've watched this show a thousand times and I know Monty always opens a door, then switching makes sense.

But otherwise... for all I know, Monty's strategy could be "if they pick the door with the prize, show them a different door; if they pick the wrong door, don't show them anything". In that case - if I know that rule, it would make sense to stick with the original choice when Monty doesn't open a door, and to change if he doesn't show me a door.

If I believe that Monty is clever, and that he has a choice about whether to open a door which he can make after I make my initial choice, and that this is a zero-sum game (my win is his loss), then my best strategy is to stick with my original choice, which gives me a 1 in 3 change of winning.

Bramblethorn said:

But do I know that Monty was committed to opening any door at all?

If I've watched this show a thousand times and I know Monty always opens a door, then switching makes sense.

But otherwise... for all I know, Monty's strategy could be "if they pick the door with the prize, show them a different door; if they pick the wrong door, don't show them anything". In that case - if I know that rule, it would make sense to stick with the original choice when Monty doesn't open a door, and to change if he doesn't show me a door.

If I believe that Monty is clever, and that he has a choice about whether to open a door which he can make after I make my initial choice, and that this is a zero-sum game (my win is his loss), then my best strategy is to stick with my original choice, which gives me a 1 in 3 change of winning.

Click to expand...

True, but in reality Monty always picks a door -- one that doesn't have the prize. And even if you've never watched the show before, ever, when you see him pick a door that doesn't have the prize, you know what to do, based on probability.

SimonDoom said:

True, but in reality Monty always picks a door -- one that doesn't have the prize. And even if you've never watched the show before, ever, when you see him pick a door that doesn't have the prize, you know what to do, based on probability.

Click to expand...

Only if you know that Monty always has to show you an empty door.

But if you don't have that knowledge - if there's a possibility that he had the option not to open a door, and that his decision was influenced by your original pick and by his knowledge of the prize location - then it's another story, and the answer isn't so simple.

Bramblethorn said:

If I've understood correctly, your model is that for a given story, Pr(5)/Pr(4) = Pr(4)/Pr(3) etc. where "Pr(X)" is shorthand for "probability that any given vote is X stars".

Let that ratio be k. Then for X in {1,2,3,4,5},

Pr(X) = (k^(x-1))*(k-1)/(k^5-1)

For the special case k=1, interpret (k-1)/(k^5-1) as 1/5.

The mean score is then:

M(k)=(k-1)(1+2*k+3*k^2+4*k^3+5*k^4)/(k^5-1)

Variance for a single vote is easiest calculated as E(vote^2)-E(vote)^2 where E is expected value. E(vote) is just M(k). E(vote^2) equals:

(k-1)(1+4*k+9*k^2+16*k^3+25*k^4)/(k^5-1)
.
.
.
- the maths is simpler (and I'm lazy)
- it has the lowest variance of any possible model, for given mean and n (under IID assumptions), so it gives a lower bound on that confidence interval - even if you don't think it's the best model, you know the CI is *at least* that wide.

Click to expand...

Finally a use for all those statistics subjects I had to take at Uni!

(Dusts off a 30 year old text book...)

Bramblethorn said:

Only if you know that Monty always has to show you an empty door.

But if you don't have that knowledge - if there's a possibility that he had the option not to open a door, and that his decision was influenced by your original pick and by his knowledge of the prize location - then it's another story, and the answer isn't so simple.

Click to expand...

I'm confused, so please be patient.

Suppose you've never played the game before, and you know nothing about Monty's methods or motives or knowledge.

You pick door A.

Monty reveals door B, and there's nothing behind it.

You have the option of sticking with door A or now picking door C.

Doesn't it make sense, at that point, to pick door C, regardless of anything else you know or suspect about what Monty knows? At this point, with Monty having revealed door B, the probability is fixed regardless of all those factors, assuming that a prize DOES lie behind one of the doors.

Black_and_White_Writer said:

Well, we have the sex covered, and possibly the rock ’n roll too. This thread is what are Lit’s thoughts or policies on drugs and alcohol?

I ask simply to know what to change in my work. There are going to be scenes of (predominantly) young adults (all 18 and over) who may indulge from time to time in drug use. It will be in my liberal views just ‘minor’ stuff, this won’t be Trainspotting, but alcohol will be imbibed and some lines of cocaine will be snorted and the odd joint smoked – and yes, the characters will inhale.

This will not glorify the whole culture of drug taking and characters will not be raging drunks or alcoholics nor will they be Walter White’s. I just in my stories want to portray a realistic setting, and whether we like it or not, recreational, illegal drugs are a part of many people’s lives.

I’ve composed a quick note for Lauren about this.

For my story I’m working on I’ve got this as a disclaimer:

This story features consensual incest sex between sister and brother and their parents with their offspring. All are fully consenting adults over 18 years of age. There is some limited drug use and alcohol use but nothing that glorifies either. The sister snorts a line of cocaine and feels ill. It makes her horny, but also makes her dry and this causes frustration and upset and leads to her cuddling her brother for comfort. She doesn’t take the drug again.


Would this sort of thing be ok? Or would this be a definite ‘No go’ area for Literotica?

Click to expand...

There was an author KindofHere who posted several I/T stories with a lot of drug and alcohol use. The stories did very well, 4.7-4.8 ratings. The guy was a great writer. I didn't care for his stories, but a lot of people did. Eventually, he pulled all his stories.