VN Ren'Py Being a DIK [v0.10.1] [DrPinkCake]

[DavDR]

Shouldn't be much different, according to law men and women are equal.

As for the law it's a strange thing, we all have the same rights, sure there's some age related rights that are different or being married or other factors... Basicly the law excist to protect us.

As for ethical questions there's always some grey area, but as for a policy like the one i copied :

Im a social worker, i work with homeless, addicts, psychiatric patients, mentally handicapped you name it, i can't buy anything from them, i can't have sexual relations with them and a bunch more rules like that....
Is there any law agency actively looking if i do? no, but if i cross lines i can still be in trouble...
Most of all my boss can decide to dissolve my contract if he can proof my functioning suffers due to me not following the policy.
For instance i can buy a homeless paper (even if not on duty) but i can not buy a stolen bicycle (even if not on duty)

That's a very simplistic interpretation of the law. For one thing, although men and women are indeed supposed to be equal it's also true that it can be extremely difficult to build a sexual harassment case against a woman. In divorce law women almost always are given preference in child custody.

Finally I was asking the poster about his particular experience in that field.

 

[Kukipett]

The problem in that scene is someone sleeping in Bella's bed with her, not Jill specifically. It's a big deal for Bella.

Heee no !! this scene happens when you live at Bella's ( after the problem with Josy and Maya) and after you drove Cathy back home, you stay at Bella's with Jill.
You sleep on the couch and Bella and Jill are in Bella's bedroom and have some kind of weird discussion in the bed or fight about something that happened once and should not happen anymore, then Jill gets out and goes back to the couch to sleep close to you.

 

[ename144]

She must have found the panties in her car Sunday or Monday morning. Because if you did Cathy Lewd scene, Bella doesn’t give you that little smile in the library and she doesn't talk to you after the "LiBrian" scene. View attachment 1208911 View attachment 1208916

Here's the timeline as I see it:

• Saturday night, Week 2: MC drives Cathy home, fools around with her but leaves her panties in the car.
• Tuesday afternoon, Week 3: Bella helps MC clean his room at the DIK Mansion. (No mention of panties)
• Tuesday, Week 4: MC works at the library with Bella, resulting in the LiBrian scene (No mention of panties, but Bella acts differently depending on the panty scene).
• Saturday, Week 4: MC and Bella play tennis with Jill and Tybalt. Bella will finally mention the panties.

So to make sense with the events we see, Bella would have had to overlook the panties for the first three-ish days, then find them within the next 6. That's seems plausible to me.

Also goddammit Cathy Why did you take off your panties for a blowjob!?!
View attachment 1208936
I mean I know that she’s sexually frustrated but its basic manners not to leave your underwear in someone else car! She could also have called Bella and tell her that she forgot something in her car and picked it up discreetly. But that's the game I guess

I did think it was odd Cathy insisted on taking her panties off when the MC didn't do much to her. Now we know why.

This is why get nervous when Maya keeps saying she deleted the video of her threesome.

Any school enacting a rule like that would leave themselves open to a Civil Rights lawsuit, especially for a 'protected class' woman. Let's just say that DPC says that in his fantasy Duckburg world that things are different, although I do wish that if ignorant foreigners are writing a story set in the United States or a US like world they would take a minimum amount of time to educate themselves about our society and our culture.

No, creating a blanket rule and applying it to everyone is precisely how the school would defend itself from accusations of bias against a "protected classes." They need only argue that allowing any students and teachers (male or female) to have sexual relations creates obvious conflicts of interest and thus it is reasonable to forbid them entirely. vogelbeest already gave you a link to Yale's policy, and you can find similar ones with minimal effort.

Obviously B&R would need to have an actual policy to that effect to fire someone for violating it. But there's no reason they couldn't, and based on both Cathy's and Jade's comments, it seems likely they do. If you think it would be easy for Cathy to successfully sue B&R for such a firing, I invite you to find court decisions in favor of a teacher in similar circumstances.

Before you repeat that it's a school policy and not a law, so what? Being fired is generally regarded as a fairly serious consequence. The fact that a teacher wouldn't also do jail time is simply failing to add further harm.

Also, I think your understanding of civil rights is backwards. Protected classes were created by statute, not the Bill of Rights. Someone who sues an employer for discrimination is actually counting on the government to restrict the freedom of association of the company that fired them. One possible defense against such a suit is to argue that the legislature in question had no authority to pass such a statute in the first place. Something similar happened to large portions of the voting rights act a few years ago (though obviously that did not start with a matter of employment).

 

[LoDoN-]

Plus something about Neil, I don't trust him.

Why is that exactly?

 

[BeingADikDik]

Why is that exactly?

Too many booty calls with Derek

 

[cormac69]

Evidently, but I mean, sometimes during my play through, specially when the MC is reading his mother's diary, the thought of his mom being alive cropped up in my head.

Like she was VERY young when she ran away to his father, what if poverty changed her views, but she was already pregnant. So she decided to have the child, leave the child with the father and just peace out. The father never had the guts to confess to the child that his mother abandoned him and just invented the story of her death, so the boy wouldn't feel betrayed by his own mother.

I feel like at the end of the diary we are going to get some pretty major reveal and Lynette being alive would be a massive gut punch. She prefered wealth over her own child.

Imagine if she turns out to be Jill's mother?

 

[LoDoN-]

Imagine if she turns out to be Jill's mother?

That would be impossible, since she was 18/19 when she had the MC and Jill is older than the MC by like 5 years, not only that be she also had an older sister. Unless Neil is full of shit, and nothing is real.

 

[JamieSadistic]

apparently this is a missing scene, some error or something. This would happen if we have Chick Status, but our status only reset in the first free roaming event.if I understand it right. so it's never happens
Wow Surprises everywhere

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

 

[DavDR]

Here's the timeline as I see it:

• Saturday night, Week 2: MC drives Cathy home, fools around with her but leaves her panties in the car.
• Tuesday afternoon, Week 3: Bella helps MC clean his room at the DIK Mansion. (No mention of panties)
• Tuesday, Week 4: MC works at the library with Bella, resulting in the LiBrian scene (No mention of panties, but Bella acts differently depending on the panty scene).
• Saturday, Week 4: MC and Bella play tennis with Jill and Tybalt. Bella will finally mention the panties.

So to make sense with the events we see, Bella would have had to overlook the panties for the first three-ish days, then find them within the next 6. That's seems plausible to me.


I did think it was odd Cathy insisted on taking her panties off when the MC didn't do much to her. Now we know why.

This is why get nervous when Maya keeps saying she deleted the video of her threesome.



No, creating a blanket rule and applying it to everyone is precisely how the school would defend itself from accusations of bias against a "protected classes." They need only argue that allowing any students and teachers (male or female) to have sexual relations creates obvious conflicts of interest and thus it is reasonable to forbid them entirely. vogelbeest already gave you a link to Yale's policy, and you can find similar ones with minimal effort.

Obviously B&R would need to have an actual policy to that effect to fire someone for violating it. But there's no reason they couldn't, and based on both Cathy's and Jade's comments, it seems likely they do. If you think it would be easy for Cathy to successfully sue B&R for such a firing, I invite you to find court decisions in favor of a teacher in similar circumstances.

Before you repeat that it's a school policy and not a law, so what? Being fired is generally regarded as a fairly serious consequence. The fact that a teacher wouldn't also do jail time is simply failing to add further harm.

Also, I think your understanding of civil rights is backwards. Protected classes were created by statute, not the Bill of Rights. Someone who sues an employer for discrimination is actually counting on the government to restrict the freedom of association of the company that fired them. One possible defense against such a suit is to argue that the legislature in question had no authority to pass such a statute in the first place. Something similar happened to large portions of the voting rights act a few years ago (though obviously that did not start with a matter of employment).

You have some very strange ideas about Laws and how they work in the court's. For one thing firing an adult teacher for dating an adult student is a violation of the teachers (because they are the employee) right to free association. As an employer the University is on shaky ground telling their employees who they can associate with. Notice I said shaky ground, because the law is interpreted through the courts, and the particulars of the case, the bias of the court, and case law will have bearing on how the colleges attorneys advise them regarding this policy.

As to protected classes, yes they were created by statute. The Constitutionality of the Statues is based on the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Association interpreted as a negative, an entities right to avoid association, has rarely survived litigation.

Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I know a lot about the law but I am not an expert, I'm not a lawyer. But I do understand enough to know that you have a lot of misconceptions about law, how it is applied, and how it is litigated. If you want to use it in your arguments then you should educate yourself about it. It's way too complicated a subject to gain meaningful insights by looking things up on the internet.

 

[ChipLecsap]

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Hey, if it's a fan-art, they fooled, me I read it on an another site.
some guy said it, russian site, google translate

in the first episode in the minimarket there is an error in the game, script.rpy 684 line, if there is a status chick, Josie will kiss goodbye, but the statuses are recalculated much later during the freeroam, so it is always zero, Josie will never kiss us

if dtype <0:
scene d0_js8 with dissolve

If it's just a fan-art, I apologize, it's fooled me, shame on me

 

[JamieSadistic]

Hey, if it's a fan-art, they fooled, me I read it on an another site.
some guy said it, russian site, google translate


If it's just a fan-art, I apologize, it's fooled me, shame on me

Leave it to you to find hidden Josy.

 

[ChipLecsap]

Leave it to you to find hidden Josy.

Well, not everyone is as generous as some people.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

There are plenty of mean person out there, who want to take advantage of my faint heart

 

[AchedCroissant]

Hey, if it's a fan-art, they fooled, me I read it on an another site.
some guy said it, russian site, google translate

It is not a fan-art

Well, not everyone is as generous as some people.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

There are plenty of mean person out there, who want to take advantage of my faint heart

OMG, you know, don't keep these things to yourself, I'm not with "the rest"

 

[ename144]

You have some very strange ideas about Laws and how they work in the court's. For one thing firing an adult teacher for dating an adult student is a violation of the teachers (because they are the employee) right to free association. As an employer the University is on shaky ground telling their employees who they can associate with. Notice I said shaky ground, because the law is interpreted through the courts, and the particulars of the case, the bias of the court, and case law will have bearing on how the colleges attorneys advise them regarding this policy.

As to protected classes, yes they were created by statute. The Constitutionality of the Statues is based on the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Association interpreted as a negative, an entities right to avoid association, has rarely survived litigation.

Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I know a lot about the law but I am not an expert, I'm not a lawyer. But I do understand enough to know that you have a lot of misconceptions about law, how it is applied, and how it is litigated. If you want to use it in your arguments then you should educate yourself about it. It's way too complicated a subject to gain meaningful insights by looking things up on the internet.

DavDR, trust me when I say you apparently understand less about the law than you think you do.

The reason the particulars of the case matter is that students aren't a protected class in and of themselves. So schools can and do have the exact sort of of codes you claim are on shaky ground. If you were willing to spend a minute searching you could find court cases upholding or rejecting discipline from those rules based on the particulars of the case, which should tell you all you need to know about this.

 

[ChipLecsap]

It is not a fan-art


OMG, you know, don't keep these things to yourself, I'm not with "the rest"

. Yeah I'm selfish

 

[shazba]

So Bella's a hypocrite then?

Most definitely, a horny hypocrite.

Btw guys I don't know if this was discussed in the past, but is anybody else who find resembles between this girl & Sage... possible relation mother/older sister? View attachment 1208951 View attachment 1208952

She was so blatant in that scene. I've always thought she was a re-stylized Leah. Whoever she is, I hope we see her again...

My game keeps crashing at this point:

You must be registered to see the links

After some resetting, this error came up. I reset it again and the error is gone but the crash is still here. Please help
I downloaded a new game but old save.

You've got an old walkthrough installed or something like that. You need a clean install (so download the entire game again if you just did an update). Sad but true.

Copied from YALE University Policy :

Policy on Teacher-Student Consensual Relations
The integrity of the teacher-student relationship is the foundation of the University’s educational mission. This relationship vests considerable trust in the teacher, who, in turn, bears authority and accountability as a mentor, educator, and evaluator. The unequal institutional power inherent in this relationship heightens the vulnerability of the student and the potential for coercion. The pedagogical relationship between teacher and student must be protected from influences or activities that can interfere with learning and personal development.

Whenever a teacher is or in the future might reasonably become responsible for teaching, advising, or directly supervising a student, a sexual relationship between them is inappropriate and must be avoided. In addition to creating the potential for coercion, any such relationship jeopardizes the integrity of the educational process by creating a conflict of interest and may impair the learning environment for other students. Finally, such situations may expose the University and the teacher to liability for violation of laws against sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

Bruv you are arguing with DavDR, might as well try to convince a door.

Show me something that look's vaguely like an argument. The point was is it against the law in the US, well the answer to that is no.

Okay, I will tango, let's see if you can be genuine...

Are students and teachers (professors) equal? or is there a power dynamic between them?

You have some very strange ideas about Laws and how they work in the court's. For one thing firing an adult teacher for dating an adult student is a violation of the teachers (because they are the employee) right to free association. As an employer the University is on shaky ground telling their employees who they can associate with. Notice I said shaky ground, because the law is interpreted through the courts, and the particulars of the case, the bias of the court, and case law will have bearing on how the colleges attorneys advise them regarding this policy.

As to protected classes, yes they were created by statute. The Constitutionality of the Statues is based on the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Association interpreted as a negative, an entities right to avoid association, has rarely survived litigation.

Finally, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I know a lot about the law but I am not an expert, I'm not a lawyer. But I do understand enough to know that you have a lot of misconceptions about law, how it is applied, and how it is litigated. If you want to use it in your arguments then you should educate yourself about it. It's way too complicated a subject to gain meaningful insights by looking things up on the internet.

DavDR, trust me when I say you apparently understand less about the law than you think you do.

The reason the particulars of the case matter is that students aren't a protected class in and of themselves. So schools can and do have the exact sort of of codes you claim are on shaky ground. If you were willing to spend a minute searching you could find court cases upholding or rejecting discipline from those rules based on the particulars of the case, which should tell you all you need to know about this.

Here are some lawyers discussing the question (teachers having affairs with legal aged students). The opening question is talking about a 17 year old (legal age being 16), so it sounds like high school, but the answers delve deeper than that:

You must be registered to see the links

EDIT: The more I read about it, the more vague it becomes.

I believe the link above is still really just about high schools.

It seems the only grounds where it could become criminal is when it's considered sexual harassment, which isn't the case between the mc and Bella nor the mc and Cathy.

That doesn't mean the college doesn't have their own policies (and probably would terminate the teachers as Cathy indicates), but there would be no criminal charges.

apparently this is a missing scene, some error or something. This would happen if we have Chick Status, but our status only reset in the first free roaming event.if I understand it right. so it's never happens
Wow Surprises everywhere

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not.

Hey, if it's a fan-art, they fooled, me I read it on an another site.
some guy said it, russian site, google translate

If it's just a fan-art, I apologize, it's fooled me, shame on me

It's definitely not fan art.

It's when the mc tells Josy he's leaving (the day of their first "date"). She kisses the mc if your "dtype" is less than zero.

This variable is only updated when the "updateDikScore()" function is called. It's first called in the free roam at home when the mc is getting ready for his "date" with Josy. That's after the scene at the store, so yeah, your "dtype" will be zero in that store scene no matter what.

Basically it's a bug.

 

[DavDR]

DavDR, trust me when I say you apparently understand less about the law than you think you do.

The reason the particulars of the case matter is that students aren't a protected class in and of themselves. So schools can and do have the exact sort of of codes you claim are on shaky ground. If you were willing to spend a minute searching you could find court cases upholding or rejecting discipline from those rules based on the particulars of the case, which should tell you all you need to know about this.

I specifically pointed out to you in my reply, which you apparently failed to comprehend, that the crux of the case is between the teacher and their employer. I never once mentioned students as a protected class.

 

[DavDR]

Here are some lawyers discussing the question (teachers having affairs with legal aged students). The opening question is talking about a 17 year old (legal age being 16), so it sounds like high school, but the answers delve deeper than that:

You must be registered to see the links

EDIT: The more I read about it, the more vague it becomes.

I believe the link above is still really just about high schools.

It seems the only grounds where it could become criminal is when it's considered sexual harassment, which isn't the case between the mc and Bella nor the mc and Cathy.

That doesn't mean the college doesn't have their own policies (and probably would terminate the teachers as Cathy indicates), but there would be no criminal charges.

Yes, I already pointed that out. Several times.

 

[eagle91160]

Error :

```
I'm sorry, but an uncaught exception occurred.

While running game code:
File "game/season2/scripts/freeroam/episode7/events/ep7_freeroam_hots_events.rpy", line 98, in script
menu:
File "game/header.rpy", line 270, in menu_override
for label, condition, value in items ]
KeyError: u'ep7_bar_menu '

-- Full Traceback ------------------------------------------------------------

Full traceback:
File "game/season2/scripts/freeroam/episode7/events/ep7_freeroam_hots_events.rpy", line 98, in script
menu:
File "M:\Games\Traduction jeux\BeingADIK-0.7.2-pc_lunch\renpy\ast.py", line 1626, in execute
choice = renpy.exports.menu(choices, self.set, args, kwargs, item_arguments)
File "game/header.rpy", line 270, in menu_override
for label, condition, value in items ]
File "M:\Games\Traduction jeux\BeingADIK-0.7.2-pc_lunch\renpy\exports.py", line 3387, in substitute
return renpy.substitutions.substitute(s, scope=scope, translate=translate)[0]
File "M:\Games\Traduction jeux\BeingADIK-0.7.2-pc_lunch\renpy\substitutions.py", line 253, in substitute
s = formatter.vformat(s, (), kwargs)
File "/home/tom/ab/x64lucid-deps/install/lib/python2.7/string.py", line 563, in vformat
File "/home/tom/ab/x64lucid-deps/install/lib/python2.7/string.py", line 585, in _vformat
File "/home/tom/ab/x64lucid-deps/install/lib/python2.7/string.py", line 646, in get_field
File "/home/tom/ab/x64lucid-deps/install/lib/python2.7/string.py", line 605, in get_value
KeyError: u'ep7_bar_menu '

Windows-8-6.2.9200
Ren'Py 7.3.2.320
Being a DIK 0.7.2
Mon May 24 04:14:58 2021
```

 

[ename144]

I specifically pointed out to you in my reply, which you apparently failed to comprehend, that the crux of the case is between the teacher and their employer. I never once mentioned students as a protected class.

Fine, I'll spell it out for you.

The case between the teacher and the school is governed by contract law. Whatever the teacher agreed to in the employment contract is fully enforceable on them unless it violates the law. Illegal contracts (or clauses if the rest of the contract can stand) are unenforceable. Legal contracts are all too enforceable.

So if B&R's contract specifies that teachers will obey school rules, and the school has a rule against fraternizing with students, the school can discipline a teacher who fraternizes with students. The exception would be if a rule against fraternizing with students was itself illegal. That's where protected classes could matter. But as I said, students aren't a protected class, so the rule is legal and thus enforceable. I only brought it up because you mentioned protected classes earlier and I wanted to make it clear they wouldn't apply here.

Does that make more sense?