Search TC Blox

Justification Ethics Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Justification Ethics [Full Text] Note that the following arguments use Normative Rationalism as an assumption. This assumption comes from the 2nd section of this text: [yoggism as a procedural norm] This also provides a more rational alternative to NAP Argumentation Ethics . –Persuasive Arguments appeal to the Normative Value of Interests– A persuasive argument, as defined here, is an argument that derives a claim in the form "you ought to accept X". This claim is a normative claim, and it's validity and normativity must be derived from the argument's premises. For the argument to be correct the person or "debate opponent" should rationally agree with the premises, otherwise the ought claim would not apply. An argument with a normative "you ought to accept X" claim, may obtain it's normativity from rationalism, or from subjective opinions, and emotive preferences. Normative rationalism may be assumed by virtue of the structure of any argument itself, where the question of whether the argument's premises are correct or not already presupposes rationalism and the validity of deduction. If a persuasive argument's conclusion is derived through more than just pure rationalism though, the debate opponent will only accept premises, and only be required rationally to accept premises, if the premises appeal to shared preferences that are valid, preferences as in anything behavior guiding; be that wants, desires, beliefs, values, etc. These are rational interests. Any persuasive argument must have premises that appeal to your opponent's interests, their rational interests, unless an argument is founded only on rationalism itself. Since persuasive arguments prove normative claims, that normativity must arise from the premises, premises that must appeal to the opponent, thus the normativity must arise from and assume the normative value of the relevant interests of the opponent. Again, besides arguments that prove things purely rationally. Therefore, any persuasive argument must either prove something based solely on rationalism, or must presuppose the normative value of an opponent's rational interests, relevant to the interaction. –Yoggist Justification Ethics, Interests through Justification– If you interact with someone, you should be able to rationally justify your interaction, in a way where those involved in the interaction should be rationally required to accept it. This means you should be able to justify that the claim “You rationally ought to accept my way of interacting is reasonable” is true for the person you are interacting with; you should be able to argue you are acting reasonably. This is a 'persuasive argument', meaning an argument that attempts to derive a claim in the form "You ought to accept X". Any argument in this form, must appeal to the interests of any debate opponent for the conclusion to have valid normative weight. To engage in an interaction that is inconsistent with the normative value of interest, is to engage in an interaction that cannot be rationally justified to anyone. –Egoism is not Rationally Justifiable– True Egoism is the claim that "Your own self-interest is the only thing with normative value." This claim thus cannot be rationally justified, as any arguments meant to act as justification to someone must appeal to their rational interests relevant to the argument; unless there is some way to prove Egoism through pure rationalism, but this is impossible. Egoism cannot be argued for through rational justification because it is true that any act of rational justification presupposes that the interests of the opponent that are relevant to the interaction have normative value. Egoism contradicts this notion directly. The only way to prove Egoism or any other framework that contradicts the normative value of preferences, is thus by proving them purely rationally, with no assumptions that could constitute preferences more than just hard logic, and appealing to hard logic through the presupposition of the validity of arguments itself. This is impossible because of the is/ought problem. –Interest-Frustration cannot be justified by Egoism– True Egoism also requires the conclusion that it is irrational to say a strong person should not murder a disadvantaged person. It is impossible to argue such a conclusion to someone if they are the disadvantaged, because making such an argument requires appealing to their preferences and such a conclusion contradicts them; their interest in not being attacked is clearly relevant to any argument against it, yet the argument against it can only function by granting their interests no weight. This is a blatant contradiction in the nature of justification itself. You cannot rationally justify an assertion that you can punch someone in the face for your own enjoyment, because any argument they would care about must appeal to some preferences they share, yet the assertion itself is contradictory to their preferences and grants their interests no weight. It also cannot be claimed that to have a preference beyond Egoism is irrational, as Egoism itself dictates that all self-interest is rationally valid. It is only Preference as a Normative Force itself, that allows for the distinction between rational and irrational interests, and it is this which allows for proper rational justification. Therefore, it is impossible to justify Egoism, it is impossible to justify behavior through Egoism, it is impossible to normatively argue for Egoism in a way that applies to anyone with an interest against it, and it is also self-contradictory to accept an argument for Egoism as it always contradicts your own rationally-justifiable preferences. –A Premise of Egoism proves Yoggism– Rational Egoism is the conclusion that any agent rationally ought to appeal to nothing more than their own self-interest, which comes from the idea they should most rationally act in accordance with their own interests, and only their own interests. Cooperation, fairness, and civility, thus are only rationally justifiable in so far as they promote your own self-interest. It is true that since all beings act in accordance with their own interests, as a matter of definition, they rationally ought to most rationally act in accordance with their own interests. This is equivalent to saying they rationally ought to act rationally. What is not true is the notion that acting against one's own self-interest is always irrational. This premise is wrong and can be demonstrated as wrong both outside of Egoism, and within Egoism. Egoism relies on this premise, yet it can be proven demonstrably that the premise contradicts Egoism, showing Rational Egoism taken on absolutes, to be self-contradictory. –Premises: (P1): If an agent is rational, then they ought to act most rationally in accordance with their own interests. (P2): A consideration can justify an action for an agent only if ignoring that consideration would count as irrational for that agent. (P3): Acting against one’s own interests counts as irrational. –Logic: (L1): From (P2), Justifications must make ignoring them irrational. (L2): From (P1 + P3), Acting against one’s interests is irrational for a rational agent. (L3): From (L2), Any consideration that requires acting against one’s interests is irrational. (L4): From (L1 + L3), Considerations that require irrational actions are not rationally justifiable. –Conclusion: From (L4): Therefore, for an action to be justified for an agent, the justification must be relative to that agent’s interests, or again be justified through rationalism itself. This conclusion holds true as long as Premise 3 is true. Rational Egoism relies on Premise 3, yet the conclusion contradicts Egoism by widely opening up the Interests Via Justification argument. If justification is impossible without appealing to the interests of those involved, without assuming the normative value of relevant preferences held by those involved in an interaction, then Egoism is impossible to fully justify as it fundamentally contradicts the notion of other's interests being in any way normative. Thus, Egoism in and of itself is inconsistent relative to justification, and collapses into Yoggism. –The value of Interests, derived from the value of Rational Interaction and Deliberation– We can now demonstrate this proof step-by-step: --Basic Definitions and Clarifications-- A. Persuasive arguments are definitionally, arguments that prove a conclusion of "Therefore, you ought to believe X", from deduction through premises. B. In this context we can assume normative claims deduced from premises, must require at least one normative premise. C. Interests are defined as any preferences, values, beliefs, wants, desires, that which a being's behavior tends towards; they are action-guiding. D. If a premise in an argument acts as a normative claim, the argument's correctness can assume the normativity of the premise, but only in so far as the argument is correct. If the argument is incorrect, either invalid or one of the premises is false, then the normativity of the given premise is not necessarily valid. For example, a persuasive argument that 1+1=2 could appeal to an opponent's irrational interests in astrology, though it would be wrong to thus conclude that astrology has actual rational normative weight. The normativity is only true in so far as the argument is true, and an argument appealing to wrong premises is not true. E. Standards of evidence, values, beliefs, axioms, etc. are all themselves rational interests under the definition. Appealing to truth is appealing to your own (justifiable) preference for truth. Logical consistency is also something held as a preference by pretty much everyone, and it is also a preference appealed to by any argument. F. This argument is taken to apply to arguments that try to prove something based on more than just pure rationalism. For example, athematics requires mathematical rules be appealed to. --The Argument-- 0. General Normative Rationalism is assumed by argumentation 1. All persuasive arguments prove a conclusion of "Therefore, you ought to believe X" 2. Proving a conclusion in any argument requires premises 3. A persuasive argument's "you ought to believe X" claim will not hold if the opponent does not agree with the premises 4. An opponent agreeing with premises, requires the premises to appeal to their wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests relevant to the argument 5. Persuasive arguments ought to appeal to their opponent's relevant interests 6. The conclusion of a persuasive argument, "you ought to believe X", is a normative one 7. The normativity of a persuasive argument's claim must arise from the argument's premises, premises the opponent must agree with for the normative claim to hold for the opponent 8. The normative value of an opponent's rational interests relevant to some interaction, is assumed by any justifiable and rationally valid persuasive argument 9. Agreement with any meaningful, persuasive arguments, is to assert the idea that persuasive arguments can correctly derive normative conclusions in the form "you ought to believe X" 10. Agreement with any meaningful persuasive argument is to assert the value of rational interests of those involved in rational deliberation 11. Persuasive argumentation and thus rational justification is valuable due to it allowing those involved to converge on truth or rational conclusions 12. Rationally, interactions ought to be rationally justifiable 13. Rational justification works via persuasive argumentation. If an interaction is rationally justifiable, then you rationally ought to accept it, thus giving the "you ought to believe X" claim 14. Interactions rationally ought to appeal to the normative value of the relevant interests of all involved, due to the premises of the persuasive argumentation necessary to rationally justify the interaction –To not respect Interests, is thus a performative Contradiction– We may also demonstrate that to act in a way inconsistent with premises assumed by an argument, is a performative contradiction. A performative contradiction is when a statement's assertion contradicts necessary presuppositions required for it to be meaningful. Imagine you argue with your landlord. The landlord attempts a persuasive argumentation, thus appealing to your interests. This value of your interests is a premise of their argument. If the landlord then turns on you and threatens to evict you, they are acting inconsistent with the assumption of the normative value of your interests they held previously. By arguing for the claim that they should evict you, trying to argue in defense of their own actions, this is a performative contradiction. Therefore, if they still hold their previous argument as valid, and/or hold persuasive argumentation between them and you in any way to be valid, they are also contradicting themselves. Rationally, it can be argued that they ought to value argumentation with you, or with anyone willing to give persuasive argument for that matter. The only way then to not contradict yourself, when interacting with others where you would value argumentation, is to uphold the Fulfillment of Interests for all parties involved in the interaction. Thus, rational interactions ought to uphold the Fulfillment of Interests as a principle applicable to those parties. –Deriving Premise 5– 5. An opponent agreeing with premises, requires the premises to appeal to their wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests relevant to the argument This premise can be proven via deduction. Definitions:: Interest - wants, desires, beliefs, preferences Persuasive Argument - argument that deductively proves a claim in the form "you ought to accept X" Logic:: 1. A persuasive argument that proves a claim to an opposing party, must have its premises rationally acceptable by the opposing party. 2. For premises to be accepted, the opponent must rationally be required to agree that the premise is TRUE in the context necessary. 3. Premises may be based on subjective opinions, such as "You want clean clothes". These subjective claims can still be TRUE in the context of the argument, it can be TRUE that the opponent "wants clean clothes" 4. Premises may also be based on objective truths, such as "A=A" or "Logic". 5. Premises that are TRUE in the context of an argument, in a way that applies to the opponent, rationally should be accepted by the opponent. 6. If an opponent wants clean clothes, the subjective opinion-based premise "You want clean clothes" is TRUE as it pertains to the opponent. 7. Objective truths and subjective opinions are both forms of "Interests" by definition. 8. (from 7, 6, 2) For an opponent to be rationally required to agree a premise is TRUE in context, the premise must appeal to some Interest they hold, such as an objective truth they hold as true, like "A=A", or a subjective opinion that is TRUE for them, such as "You want clean clothes". Therefore, in a rational persuasive argument, a debate opponent agreeing with premises, requires the premises to appeal to their wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests relevant to the argument.

We make games, music, and provide information on game development and open source software, among other things. Check us out! About TC Blox TC Blox Studios was started in 2018, as a small website named "TC Sites". That website was eventually discontinued and replaced by a YouTube Channel named TC Blox YTC , later renamed to TC Blox Studios. This website was originally created to host my content, as well as downloadables such as our Content for Minecraft specifically. TonyTCB / jimmybob Hi, I'm TonyTCB! I also go by jimmybob. I am the creator of this website, and the creator of Bob Simulator , The Movy Chronicles , and most of the media on this website. I am the creator of everything present in the Portfolio . OnlyOnTCBloxNET Only on TC-BLOX.NET: Portfolio Assets Games Demo Projects Bob Simulator The Movy Chronicles Content for Minecraft Admin Abuse Resistance (AAR) Yogg Interest Theory (Yoggism) Videos Music Contributors About Help Center Bobbelvox (Open-Source Voice Chat) 3D Models - Textures - Music YouTube Videos - MiniMods - Shorts - Minecraft Modding Legal Information and Licenses Contributors Partners and Contributors One person can't do it all. See who contributes to TC Blox Studios [SEE PAST CONTRIBUTORS] TonyTCB (jimmybob) Bob of All Trades Founder of TC Blox Studios Creator of Bob Simulator Website Designer , Music , Sprites, Animation , Programming Game Development Generalist Creator of everything in Portfolio View YouTube Channel Founder of the: Admin Abuse Resistance PeaStoneCharlie Film-Maker, Animator Music Contributor , Animator , Film-Maker, Script Writer Co-Creator of: The Movy Chronicles BenTheMilkBoi (BenTheAPPLE) Sprite Designer, Creative The Milk Man Sprite Designer, 2D Animator Contributed to: Battle of The Bobs Legacy , Topple The Tower Content for Minecraft View YouTube Channel Redding (Mr. Motion) Music Maker Music Contributor , Creative Team Contributed to: GameDev Audiotracks Qaz (quackshotgun) Sprite Designer, Writer, Creative Lord and Savior of all that lives Art Designer for: No Bath Battle of The Bobs Legacy Writer and Creator of: The Cyan Anomaly The Cyan Mystery View YouTube Channel schleepy GameDev Generalist 3D Modeler, Minecraft Content Contributor , Game Development Generalist egg dragon / fitlord (Jaslego/pappy) Music Contributor Music Contributor , Sprite Designer Contributed to: Battle of The Bobs Legacy Spritework and Base Design Special Thanks to Roblox Time, mr.peanutbutter / BloomBerry, Reya Azerythz / ZuriProto / BegueBot, PeaStoneCharlie, Nye, Diamond Infant, and others - TonyTCB / jimmybob [SEE PAST CONTRIBUTORS HERE] Partnership Apply for Partnership Apply to become one of our Contributors Sign Up and become an official contributor. Don't just answer 'yes' to all the questions, tell us what you actually know how to do. Apply for Partnership First name Last name Email Why are you applying? What types of content can you make? How can you contribute? Check all that apply and all subjects you have experience in I have content ready-made to contribute Minecraft Map Creation Minecraft Texture Packs Minecraft Modding Garry's Mod Addons Godot Engine Game Development Unity Engine Game Development Programming in gdscript Game Development in-general Web Development or Website Design Machinima Creation 2D Animation 3D Animation Film-Making Video Editing 3D Modelling I am associated with an organization What name do you want to be featured on the site as? (Ex. Username) Submit Application Thanks for applying! PastContributors Past Contributors Contributors from years gone by! Roblox Time Does Roblox Lets Plays Runs the Roblox Time YouTube Channel Played an old Pancake Obby game made by TonyTCB Reya Azerythz / Zuri doer of all things On Mastodon , uwu.social , YouTube , Twitch , and Bluesky zuri.network (offline) sillycc.org (not secured) Past Minecraft World Contributor and creator of Dark GUI Pack Past Moderator for the AAR and Investigations Contributor mr.peanutbutter Music Producer A musician with over 5 years of guitar playing experience Runs the mr.peanutbutter YouTube Channel Also runs misterpeabee Twitch Fred Samuel Shadow leader of yegg Fred of all Worlds Shadow Leader of yegg Overseer of the AAR Yielder of Yogg Mythos

Page Not Found Error 404 This page doesn't exist! Browse Assets Browse Games Browse Videos Our Contributors Help Center Search Site

Weird stuff, courtisy of jimmybob! Weird Stuff See More weird videos banana E G A

bob Bob

A A

Page Not Found Error 404 This page doesn't exist! Browse Games Browse Videos Our Contributors Help Center

Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide More Anti-Abuse Principle [Full Text] —Deriving a Deontological Principle— From the Absolute Interest Conclusion, given by the derived value of the Fulfillment of Interests, we can derive that to act in alignment with the value of the fulfillment of interests of all sentient beings is utmost rational. This grants us the following Absolute Interest Principle. ---Absolute Interest Principle--- The most rational outcome overall, relative to the Absolute Class of all sentient beings, is that which upholds the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests. Therefore, it is inconsistent and irrational, to act against or in contradiction with this most rational outcome, and it is irrational to act against others rational interests as an end in itself, and to act against the fulfillment of interests on small scales as well; as it is in contradiction with the only coherent rational standards of value. ---Bridging Consequentialism and Deontology--- From this principle, we can bridge consequentialism and deontology, and derive a universal deontological principle true in all circumstances that is entirely consistent with the Absolute Interest Conclusion, and thus the AIP as well. To do this in a way that is more versatile, we can uncover how certain actions may subtly constitute interest-frustration. ---Interest Alignment and Kantian Ethics--- A major part of Kantian Ethics, the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, is the idea that people should be treated as an end in themselves and never merely as a means. This idea’s usefulness can be derived if we value people’s interests. If someone is treated as a means to someone else’s end, that means whatever actions are done are not done in respect to the person’s interests. Said another way, their interests are not respected. This violates the Absolute Interest Principle directly, as the respect of people’s interests is necessary to ensure people’s interests are not simply ignored, or treated with a bare minimum of care. To act in a way that cannot be rationally justified relative to the other person's interests or preferences, is fundamentally contradictory with the AIP. We can expand upon this into a broader idea of Interest Alignment, where interactions and contracts between people are only truly ethical if the people involved have aligned interests; ensuring they are all mutually benefiting from the contract. It is in this way that Interest Alignment to a reasonable extent, explains the value of Consent, as it can only be achieved through enthusiastic, informed consent among the parties involved. ---Consent--- Consent is a continuous, preferably enthusiastic, explicit, and relevantly-informed, acceptance of an agreement, contract, or activity. Preferably enthusiastic here means you not only should have an interest in signing a contract, or accepting an agreement, but you also ought to enthusiastically approve of each term of the contract, every part or at least the most important parts of the agreement or activity. Relevantly-informed means that you know what you are agreeing to and have the knowledge required, to a reasonable and relevant extent, to meaningfully judge the agreement's outcomes relative to your own interests. The reason these things are valuable, the reason consent is a useful 'construct' at all, if it can even be denegrated to a mere construct, is because it is necessary to ensure interactions between people respect their interests. If people's interests are not aligned at all, I.E. they are all acting in respect to only their own individual interests, then they will end up frustrating against each-others interests. Relative to interests as a value, this is contradictory with the idea that interests are meaningful at all. It is for this reason that Consent, even if it is defined as a mere construct, is surely the most valuable, universal, and important construct. This is also the reason why behaviors that function off of misaligned interests, that may result in frustration for one side of a deal, can be so dangerous to the meaning of consent and interests itself. This, is the definition of Abuse. ---Rational Interests take priority over Irrational Interests--- Four ruffians break into your house, what the devil? As you grab your powdered wig and Kentucky rifle, blow a golfball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw your pistol on the second man, misses him entirely because it's smoothbore, and have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot, "Tally ho, lads!" The grapeshot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Self-defense is rationally justifiable, as your defense of yourself is an inherent and rational interest relative to your own self-interest, and their interest in killing or seriously hurting you is irrational as it is not inherent and is instead arbitrary. You are contradicting their interests in not being killed, but they are contradicting the interest of not being killed as well. You are merely defending yourself while defending rationality itself. It is justifiable as long as it is rational to act according to an inherent and non-arbitrary interest in contradiction with the relevant interests of an irrational actor, while the irrational actor contradicts their own relevant interests. This begs the question of what qualifies as consistent? Consistent relative to what, all sentient beings' interests? Which interests must be the most inherent and rational interests, as clearly it is irrational to act relative to the standard that 1+1=3, even if everybody has an interest in asserting that. The most rational standard thus must be based on the most inherent and rational interests, and the protection of them. Murderers valuing their own lives is an irrational, contradictory interest. It is an interest with some value, but of less value than the interest of someone acting otherwise entirely consistently with the value of interests and/or the AIP. Therefore: Killing ruffians in self-defense is rationally justifiable because your rational inherent interests are of more value than the contradictory interests of the ruffians, and thus your interests are more relevant to whatever utmost rational standard of value selected. This comes from the recognition that rational interests take priority over irrational interests. Based on these arguments and the AIP, irrational frustration can be said to involve acting in a way that is not aligned with the rational interests of others. Acting in alignment with rational interests, is thus utmost rational, and defense of those rational interests against rationality is also itself rational. Note as well that inherently interest-frustrating conduct is measured according to the standard that such conduct results in interest-frustrating by way of either interest misalignment, or otherwise, in most circumstances regardless of external factors to a reasonable extent, by the definition of "inherent harms". With these considerations, can be crafted the following principle of Yogg Law: —The Anti-Abuse Principle (AAP)— Actions that constitute interference with another's non-abusive fulfillment of their own rational and non-contradictory interests, are illegitimate. Actions that result in the frustration of interests, through overall frustration by misalignment of interests between parties, or due to conduct that is inherently interest-frustrating, are irrational and self-contradictory, constitute ‘abuse’, and are thus illegitimate. Actions that prevent abuse, or inhibit otherwise interest-frustrating conduct; including conduct that is a product of irrational interest misalignment between parties, and conduct that is inherently irrationally frustrating; are legitimate as they constitute resistance to abuse. This principle can be stated in essence in a simple sentence: "Do what you want, unless it stops others from doing what they want, unless what they want is irrational and inherently harmful to other's interests; in which case defend rational interests." Consent

Have a problem? Contact us, we'll help you with issues with our games, information, and other problems. Help Center Have Questions or Suggestions? Have a Bug Report for one of my Projects? Submit a Ticket and we'll get back to you! OR you can send an email at: tcbloxstudios@gmx.com Search the Site Browse our Games Browse our Videos Submit a Support Ticket Enter your Name Enter your Email Address Explain the issue you're having or question you have Submit Thanks for your ticket, I'll get back to you! More of my Content, Only on TC-BLOX.NET: Assets Games Demo Projects Bob Simulator The Movy Chronicles Admin Abuse Resistance Yogg Interest Theory (Yoggism) Videos Music Contributors About Help Center 3D Models - Textures - Music YouTube Videos - MiniMods - Shorts Legal Information and Licenses

Watch videos created by TC Blox Studios including memes, game development news, tutorials, resources for developers, among other things. Enjoy my Videos! (See Mo re: Game Development , Minecraft Modding , MiniMods ) Videos Videos Play Video Share Whole Channel This Video Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Copy Link Link Copied Now Playing 17:49 Play Video Why Open-Source is Superior (and the problems with Copyright) Now Playing 16:25 Play Video I made a game Larger than the Universe (Infinite Worlds, GameDev Project) Now Playing 08:53 Play Video Why All Features Should Be Settings (Sandbox Game Design) Now Playing 06:33 Play Video I made a Godot Game with Infinite Features (Bob Simulator Devlog) Now Playing 04:54 Play Video What is Randomness? : GameDev Analysis Now Playing 04:48 Play Video What makes Sandbox Games Great? : An Analysis Now Playing 08:03 Play Video I made 3D Models for my Godot Game (Bob Simulator Gamedev Project) Now Playing 05:52 Play Video I made the Largest World in Godot (Surpasses 64-bit, GameDev Project) Now Playing 01:15 Play Video Infinite Gen. in Godot Engine (Bob Simulator GameDev) Now Playing 01:14 Play Video NPCs in Godot Engine (Bob Simulator GameDev) Now Playing 00:26 Play Video Splashtexts Gamedev Concept Art (Bob Simulator Devlog) Now Playing 00:56 Play Video RIP Unity (Unity Godot Coffin Dance) v2

An Open-Source Voice Chat App created by jimmybob / TonyTCB Bobbelvox Bobbelvox is free and Open-Source under the Open-Source 2024 License . - Download app as .zip for Windows - - Download as .zip for Linux (x86_64 / x86_32) - - Download as .zip for Linux (arm64 / arm32) - - Download as .zip for Web (html) - The program's source code as Godot Project Files are available: - Download Project Files (Source Code) as .zip - Bobbelvox is a free and open-source Voice Chat program for Windows and Linux. You can use it to host voice calls. The code of Bobbelvox is reused in Bob Simulator for the Voice Chat feature. BobbelVox is an Open-Source Voice Chat Software created by jimmybob / TonyTCB using the Open-Source Godot Engine. BobbelVox was created by TC Blox Studios, you can see more at https://www.tc-blox.net BobbelVox is licensed under the TC Blox Studios Open-Source 2024 License: https://www.tc-blox.net/legal/opensource-2024-license It is recommended, for sensitive conversations, to use Bobbelvox with people within your own Wifi Network, for security reasons. As of v1.2.7, voice calls are not encrypted on their own. Usage of the Bobbelfont is licensed under the SIL Open Font License. You can view these licenses at: https://openfontlicense.org/open-font-license-official-text/ https://www.tc-blox.net/legal/opensource-2024-license BobbelVox's Source Code and provided Project Files are licensed under the TC Blox Studios Open-Source 2024 License. Resources part of the Godot Engine are licensed under the MIT License: https://godotengine.org/license/ Please give credit to jimmybob / TonyTCB and TC Blox Studios for use of BobbelVox assets and project files.

Justification Ethics Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Anti-Abuse Principle Justification Ethics More Justification Ethics [Full Text] Fish