Yeah a lack of proof reading annoys me when i see it at work. I'll always return it to the individual when it's clearly AI and ask that they rewrite in their own words otherwise they get deskilled in their own knowledge/skills which places us (and the individual they're working with) potentially at Read more… risk because you can bet your bottom dollar that it's got a bias somewhere which they've overlooked

Thank you, I will be paying more attention in future!!

Thanks Eyem, I'd rather not spend my time interacting with something written by a robot, will take more notice in future.

How do you tell? I can identify when someone's used it at work because writing style/language changes and certain words they ask it to use are highlighted in bold text but not here.
Also, if this is what AI gives out, how intelligent is it actually?

I guess it's about context isn't it.
Ghosting for x amount hours/ignoring a "direct command" isn't bratting in my view.
My thoughts are, at what point is the relationship, is there psychological safety, emotional intelligence, buy in from each individual, what's been agreed etc etc

The court has considered all submissions with due care and, having taken a firm hold of the matter, will now address the point directly.
For the avoidance of doubt, and to pre-empt any further attempts at semantic mischief, the court finds that within the context of these proceedings, “naughtiness” Read more… is not to be construed as misconduct, impropriety, or moral failing. Any such reading would betray a lack of discipline in both language and thought.
On the contrary, the court rules as follows:
“Naughtiness,” as argued and demonstrated herein, is properly understood to mean being a Good Girl, one who knows precisely when to test boundaries, when to yield, and when obedience itself becomes a form of excellence.
Such goodness may include, but is not limited to: charm deployed with intention, attentiveness sharpened by expectation, and a knowing disregard for unnecessary control that has not been expressly required. All of which falls squarely within acceptable and indeed praiseworthy conduct.
Any attempt to argue otherwise would require substantially stronger authority than has been presented, and preferably one capable of maintaining control of the room, especially, some of those wanting to add their own views on the matter.
Accordingly, the supposed admission relied upon by the Defence collapses under its own definition. What has been labeled “naughty” is, in the eyes of this court, commendable behaviour of the highest order. The Defence is, and has never been anything other than, a Good Girl. One who understands the rules well enough to bend them beautifully.
The court will enter both this definition and its judgment into the record and reminds all parties that labels alone do not determine guilt; conduct, context, and control do.
The court’s judgment is final. The case is now closed.

The Defence’s Rebuttal (Filed With a Smile, A Straight Back, A Tilted Chin, and Absolutely No Apology)
.
Your Honour, esteemed members of the court, and the Prosecution, who are doing an admirable job by the way, the Defence would like to note, for the record, that this is not “philosophical Read more… gymnastics.”
This dynamic authority testing is performed with informed consent and excellent instincts.
.
Let us proceed.
.
Preliminary Objection: Authority That Cannot Be Touched Is Decorative
.
The Prosecution argues as though authority is a porcelain figurine meant to be admired from a distance, never chsllenged, never questioned.
The Defence submits instead that authority within a D/s dynamic is functional, not ornamental.
If it cannot withstand pressure, teasing, delay, or sparkle-coated resistance, then what exactly is being defended here?
A rulebook?
Or a relationship?
.
Rebuttal to Opening Claim: “Obedience Delayed Is Obedience Denied”
.
Respectfully, no.
.
It is obedience negotiated in real time.
Immediate obedience proves compliance.
Delayed obedience = chosen, returned to, reaffirmed and proves submission.
One is reflex.
The other is devotion with character and personality.
The Defence would like to remind the court that choice is not a flaw in consensual power exchange, it is the foundation.
And yes, sometimes that choice comes with commentary.
The Defence maintains that that commentary is called engagement, not insubordination.
.
Exhibit A: On the So-Called “Convenient Omissions”
.
Timeliness.
Consistency.
Not poking the bear “just to see.”
Your Honour, the Defence concedes these were omitted.
Not because they are unimportant,
but because they are assumed once the Dominant has proven worthy of being poked.
We do not test people who have been weighed, measured and found wanting.
We test strength.
Afterall, you don’t tug on a loose thread unless you’re confident the fabric will hold.
.

Exhibit B: “Provocation with Plausible Deniability”
.
Objection: loaded phrasing.
The Defence does not deny provocation.
We deny the implication that it is accidental or evasive.
We poke because we already trust the answer, that authority will respond, engage, correct, restrain, or punish as appropriate.
This is not “pressing the button anyway.”
This is confirming the button still does something.
And if it does?
Oh look, respect deepens as does trust.
.
Exhibit C: Punishment as Consequence, Not Applause
.
Agreed. Entirely. No notes.
But, 🙄 the Prosecution conveniently ignores the obvious:
In a D/s dynamic, punishment is communication. It says:
I noticed.
I cared enough to respond.
You still belong right here.
The Defence does not claim innocence because punishment exists.
She claims success, because the system responded exactly as designed and therefore expected.
.

Exhibit D: “Identical Outcomes Are a Red Herring”
.
Extra supervision?
Escalation?
A Dominant briefly questioning their life choices?
Your Honour, that is not a flaw in the system.
That is foreplay.
If the Dominant did not enjoy the dance,
the pause, the chase, the moment of “don’t make me come over there” this behaviour would have been corrected permanently.
It was not.
Therefore, the Defence submits that the detour is not inefficient.
It is intentional texture.
.

Closing Statement
.
The Prosecution wants obedience that is clean, quiet, and punctual.
The Defence offers submission that is alive with feeling.
The term “naughty” implies deviation from alignment.
A step outside the bond.
A fracture.
What the Defence engages in is play within the structure, not defiance of it.
Testing authority inside consent is not disobedience.
It is trust expressed sideways.
Good girls do not run.
We circle.
And always comes back to heel
Naughtiness is not rebellion, agreed.
But, it is also not mere inconvenience.
It is a love language spoken by those secure enough to test, tease, and still return, head bowed, eyes bright, waiting to be corrected.
The Defence does not claim virtue.
She claims chemistry and enjoys being a Good Girl.
And, if the court is honest, any dynamic would be dreadfully dull without her.
.
The Defence, (a Good Girl, leaning back, smiling sweetly), rests.

The Defence does not deny moments of teasing, testing, or deliberate sparkle-coated resistance.
What she denies, firmly, respectfully, and with impeccable posture, is that these moments redefine her as a "naughty girl"

Thats a lot of words 4rch for someone unconvinced.
Cross exam incoming. In my own time of course.

I'm guessing that if Coppers are continually following you, there's a reason for it. Maybe start behaving yourself?

I know!!

But, is Aranhis able to challenge the argument? I think not! 🤣😂