Search TC Blox

Deduction of Interests Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Deduction of Interests as a Value [Logical Deduction] –The value of Interests, derived from the existence of Normative Force itself– --Basic Definitions and Clarifications-- B. Deduction starts with premises and derives a conclusion. If the conclusion is meant to apply to some agent, it's premises must apply to that agent, otherwise the conclusion would not follow. A. Acceptance of deductive arguments presuppose the validity of deduction and reason for seeking and identifying truth, as a rejection of deduction as valid makes those deductive arguments invalid. C. Agents view their own interests with normative value relative to themselves, by definition. D. The Is/Ought Fallacy dictates you cannot derive "You ought not murder" from pure truth claims. E. Thus, if normative force must require something else, that something else is presupposed by acceptance of any form of normative force apart from the normativity of reason itself. F. If an argument proves a normative claim such as "You ought to accept 1+1=2", that argument's correctness assumes and relies on the normativity of it's premises. If it turns out one of the premises is false, that's fine because that means the argument isn't actually correct. The conclusion being true doesn't imply the premises are true, the premises imply the conclusion. The normativity is only true in so far as the argument is true. --The Argument-- 0. Argumentation and acceptance of any deductive argument, presupposes reason and deduction. 1. Persuasive arguments prove a conclusion of "Therefore, you ought to believe X" by definition. 2. Rational justification is defined as a persuasive argument that deductively proves a claim X as correct, via a deductive argument proving a conclusion in the form "Thus, you ought to accept X". 3. Proving a conclusion in any deductive argument, requires premises. (basic deduction) 4. If rational justifications prove normative claims to some opponent, based on premises, those premises must apply to the opponent as otherwise the conclusion would not follow. 5. Normative conclusions must derive their normativity from some normative premises. 6. For a normative premise to apply to some opponent, it must derive it's normative force from claims already valid for the opponent; epistemic truths, reason, or values they hold as having force. 7. An opponent's wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests, and they are values the opponent holds with normative force relative to themselves. 8. Thus, for a normative premise to apply to some opponent, it must derive normative force from an appeal to truth, reason, or the opponent's value of their own interests. 9. It is impossible to derive normative claims in the form "You ought not murder" from true facts alone. This is the is/ought fallacy. Thus epistemic truths and reason, fail to derive normative force. 10. Any argument that hinges on or argues for normative force, thus must ultimately derive that normative force from the value of interests, as otherwise the conclusion need not apply. 11. Acceptance of the validity of normative force in any respect thus presupposes the assumption that normative force can be justified, thus appealing to the value of interests. –Acceptance of Normative Force presupposes a value of Interests– Therefore, to assume the existence of normative force rationally requires the presupposition of the normative value of Interests, as otherwise such normative force would be impossible to justify. To reject the normative value of Interests as they apply to all beings, is to make all arguments for normative force of any kind unjustifiable. To reject Interests as the source of normative value is thus to forfeit all normative force. —Deduction of Interests as a Value via rules of Interaction Justification— –Definitions: Persuasive argument: an argument aimed at justifying the conclusion “Therefore, you ought to believe X” Relevant interests: an agent’s wants, desires, beliefs, and preferences relevant to the argument Rationally justifiable interaction: an interaction that can be defended via an argument deducing the claim "Therefore, you are rationally required to accept X" Objectively true: as used here, a claim that directly follows from hard logic, empiricism, or other inarguable epistemology; true facts about reality itself, is-statements Rational oughts: You rationally ought to accept anything that is rationally-derivable; including logic, inarguable epistemology such as empiricism, and the objectively true –Premises: (P0): If a claim is objectively true and rationally derivable, you rationally ought to accept it by definition; as they should be derivable through logic, empiricism, or other rational epistemology (P1): All persuasive arguments aim to justify the normative conclusion “Therefore, you ought to believe X” (definition) (P2): Any argument that proves a conclusion requires premises to derive it (P3): A persuasive argument’s “you ought to believe X” claim's derivation does not hold for an opponent unless they are rationally required to accept all that is necessary to justify the claim (P4): To be rationally required to accept premises of an argument requires that those premises appeal to what is objectively true, or to your relevant interests (P5): Normative conclusions must be derived through normative premises, for example rational oughts must be derived from rationally-derivable truths, which are normative by definition (P6): Rational justification works via persuasive argumentation for the claim "Therefore, you ought to accept X claim", which then grants a specific claim's justification (P7): Rationally, interactions ought to be rationally justifiable –Logic: (L1): From (P1 + P2), persuasive arguments necessitate premises to justify “you ought to believe X” (L2): From (P3 + L1), for a persuasive argument's conclusion's derivability to hold for an opponent, the opponent must rationally be required to accept the premises (L3): From (P1 + P5), the normative force of a persuasive argument's claim of “you ought to believe X” must come from the premises (L4): From (L3 + L2), a persuasive argument's normative force requires the opponent to be rationally required to accept the premises (L5): From (P4 + L4), a persuasive argument's premises must appeal either to objectively true statements, or to the opponent's relevant interests, for the argument to have normative weight (L6): From (L5 + L4), the normative force of persuasive arguments depends upon the normative value of; objectively true statements, or opponent’s relevant interests, based on the premises (L7): From (L6 + P6), the normative force of rational justification depends upon the normative value of; objectively true statements, or opponent’s relevant interests, based on the premises (L8): From (L7 + P7), interactions rationally must appeal to the normative value of; relevant interests of participants, or objectively true statements; in-order to be rationally justifiable –Conclusion: From (L8): Interactions rationally ought to appeal to the normative value of relevant interests of participants, or that which is objectively true, because rational justification requires persuasive arguments whose normative force depends on appealing to at least one.

Yogg Virtue Theory Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Yogg Virtue Theory [Full Text] —Consent from Justification Ethics— Consent is a continuous, preferably enthusiastic, explicit, and relevantly-informed, acceptance of an agreement, contract, or activity. The value of Consent can be obtained through simple Justification Ethics. Agreements sustained via an alignment of interests will ensure people's interests are respected; for if agreements are handled with everyone involved only looking out for their own interests, and not actually in agreement, this will end up with gross interest misalignment and thus the interaction will dissolve into an anti-interest catastrophy in violation of the AIP and AAP. —Passive vs. Active Interactions— Justification Ethics lays out the following concept: 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. Thus, interactions must be rationally justifiable relative to Interests. The question here is what kind of interaction? If someone is in danger in front of me, do I have a duty to act and help them? To what end, to what limits? —Justification Ethics and a Right to a Private Sanctuary— Justification Ethics is contingent on the normative obligation to rationally justify methods of interaction. This normative obligation comes from Normative Rationalism. Does this normative obligation apply to inaction as well as action? It could be argued in theory that for someone in danger in front of you, you are not interacting with that person, and thus no rational justification for anything is necessary until you interact with them. This view implies interests only become relevant once you enter into an interaction with someone else who has Normative Will, who has interests. Thus, inaction is never unjustifiable unless somehow inaction is contradictory with the existence of interests themselves, such as if "Interest Structures" or the "Pillars holding up Interests" are themselves under threat, similar to theories of Threshold Deontology. There is a problem with this analysis though, couldn't it be said that inaction is yet another form of behavior, and as a behavior it is the fulfillment of an interest, an interest to not act? Must this interest be rationally justifiable? If so, justifiable to whom? How can it be narrowed down who is involved in a behavior that by definition is directly affecting no-one? —Praxeological Asymmetry— One place to turn to is the idea of a Praxeological Asymmetry. Praxeology is the theory of beings that engage in purposeful behavior. Praxeological Asymmetry is the idea that inaction or withholding from action does not require justification in the same way as active interaction, and this is founded on Epistemological Asymmetry grounds. Epistemology is the theory of how beliefs should be shaped, and this idea holds within it an arguable asymmetry. If you have a claim like "there is a teapot between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn", the lack of evidence for such a claim means that you, empirically, ought to disbelieve in the existence of the teapot. So a lack of evidence leads to disbelief rather than just neutrality? This implies an asymmetry. Applying similar logic, or applying this epistomological thinking to rational justification, leads to a Justification Ethics conclusion that interests are relevant to only involved people in an interaction. If your actions don't directly affect anyone, you aren't interacting with anyone in an active way, then justification relative to interests need not be present due to the asymmetry. —Epistemological Asymmetry is Invalid?— There is unfortunately a problem here too. Belief in such a mystical teapot is irrational, but so is neutrality towards the hypothesis, due to there being an overwhelming amount of evidence that space is mostly empty, so the area between Jupiter and Saturn should be devoid of random teapots, as well as how Earthly objects should be nowhere near planetary orbits, except under very specific circumstances of which none should exist for a random teapot. Thus disbelief is the rational conclusion, not due solely because of a lack of evidence but also because of evidence to the contrary. This presents a problem because other claims where there is limited or no evidence going for or against the claim, may not have a "default state" to point to for deciding whether belief or disbelief is rational, leading to neutrality being the rational conclusion. This breaks the asymmetry which goes against the logic of "non-interaction" leading to non-justification, leading to inaction not being in violation of interests. —Abuse Constructs a Right to a Private Sanctuary?— Perhaps due to neutrality being correct in a true both-sides lack of evidence, no evidence for or against a particular claim, this can grant a "default state" that can bind Justification Ethics to ongoing interactions, the same way non-existent future interests are fundamentally different from Justification Ethics and the Absolute Interest Principle, as the ought to rationally fulfill interests only derives existant interests. You cannot ought that which you cannot. It may also make sense to acknowledge that the Anti-Abuse Principle as formulated grants a protection from Inherently-Frustrating Interests, classifying them as illegitimate based on the logical implications of Interests being treated as the fundamental normative value. A protection from such inherently-frustrating interests may include a protection from harmful obligations, which further demonstrates this "Right to Private Sanctuary". —Yogg Virtue Ethics— Even if it may be hard to justify any form of duty or obligation towards those you aren't actually interacting with, using Justification Ethics, there is still a basis for defining good character and morally positive conduct, and this is Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the character and virtues of a person, what guides their behavior, rather than focusing on adherence to a principle or goal. Positive traits, aka Virtues, are the attributes that help curate morally or ethically positive behavior, and reflect an outlook on others or an outlook on existence that is in some sense morally positive. Negative traits, aka Vices, are the attributes that contradict this goal. Positive character, and the recognition of rational and irrational character traits, relative to Interests, is the way to address this problem. Virtue can thus be thought of as a Respect of Interests, of both others and your own, and the adherence to that responsibility. This is similar to Immanuel Kant's "Treat People as an End, never as a Mere Means" philosophy, which is also related to the given Yoggist definition of Abuse, that behaviors functioning off of misaligned interests, may result in frustration for one side of a deal, which can be dangerous to the meaning of interests themselves, and is thus illegitimate. —Plagiarism and Wheaton's Law— Wheaton's Law is a guiding principle that states simply, "Don't be a dick". This guiding principle maps almost perfectly onto the Anti-Abuse Principle, as to be a 'jerk' is pretty neatly spelled out as to engage in behavor that is inherently interest-frustrating, and unjustifiable to others in some way. Taking up the Anti-Abuse Principle with this idea of "Respect of Interests" as a form of Virtue, then maps perfectly the guiding principle of Wheaton's Law. This grants a valuable insight, the ability to both ethically and character-wise decry practices such as Plagiarism in the name of Interests. Plagiarism, and equivalently non-attribution and stealing credit, as well as very specific and limited forms of Intellectual Property, are thus justifiably anti-virtue as they correspond to a disrespect towards other's interests, and in many cases are unethical as they may correspond to inherently-frustrating interests as the product of both vices and interest misalignment. Some things that are illegal under absolutist Intellectual Property Rights, but are not inherently-frustrating, would include archiving, and derivative works. These actions don't harm anyone inherently, and simply represent creative expression. The ethical violation in plagiarism lies in false representation, not in duplication; so archiving doesn't count as an ethical infringement. Plagiarism frustrates interests by: 1. Stealing reputational capital (career prospects, social standing, trust). 2. Undermining trust and attribution (people rely on attribution to evaluate credibility). 3. Creating asymmetric advantage through deception (falsely-attributed exchange). 4. Discouraging creation by breaking the link between effort and recognition. This makes plagiarism inherently frustrating, regardless of any monetary exchange. Archiving does not inherently frustrate interests because: 1. It preserves access without deceptive or abusive practices. 2. It does not claim authorship of anything and ought to include proper attribution. 3. It often aligns interests (creator interest in preservation + public interest in access). Any harm is contingent, not inherent (e.g. bandwidth costs, disputes in hosting). —Forming a Principle— Therefore, based on all this reasoning, we can define Virtue and Vice as the following: Virtue: Traits that curate a respect towards Interests as having value. Vice: Traits that curate a disrespect towards Interests as having value. Some virtues consistent with this view would include: Generosity, Altruism, Self-Reliance, Solidarity, Trustworthyness, Justice, Fairness, Mutualism Some vices consistent with the view would include: Unfairness, Irrationality, Rage, Disrespect, Hatefulness, Exploitativeness, Callousness, Cowardice Using this reasoning we can then define the following principle, describing Just Duty, and Fair Behavior. —Yogg Virtue Principle— You ought to act in a way consistent with the virtues that curate respect for interests, including Mutual Respect, Justice, Truth, and Recognition of others as Self-Sovereign. You ought to not act against Consent, or enforce Interest Misalignment for your own gain through Unfairness, Irrationality, Explotativeness, or Abuse. You ought to form a character that adheres to the responsibility of upholding these character traits, against Negligence towards others, and Abuse of others. Common virtues such as Justice, Self-Sovereignty, and Generosity, are simply emergent properties of the Respect for Interests.

A funny embedded site created by TC Blox Studios that is basically Garry's Mod News (yes really) Back to Site This is a Legacy Version of TC-BLOX.NET. Links and Information may be outdated and parts of the site may not work.

The terms pertaining to your legal use of our Open-Source and Free-To-Use Content from TC Blox Studios. Open-Source 2024 License By downloading or otherwise using Open-Source Content and "Free-To-Use" Content available on our website, you hereby agree to the Open-Source 2024 License Below are the rules and terms relating to "Free-Co ntent" which in this context refers t o anything available on this website marked as subject to the Open-Source 2024 License and/or labeled as "Open-Source" and/or labeled as "Free and Open-Source". Assets are subject to the Asset License . (Anything available on this website that is also subject to this license is referred to in this license as "Free-Content") ----CREATION OF THE OPEN-SOURCE 2024 LICENSE: 2024/8/10, YEAR/MONTH/DAY ---- --Rule #1: Attribution-- You may use all Free-Content and use them in your own content, projects, and commercial products, as long as you give credit to TC Blox Studios for their use, in the projects/media you use them in. This can include the inclusion of a link to https://www.tc-blox.net in the description of a YouTube video, or the inclusion of a link to https://www.tc-blox.net in the projects/media our Free-Content is used in. Along with the link to the website, you must also include the name of the brand, "TC Blox Studios", in the credits. There are no restrictions given by this license on what kinds of creative works you use Free-Content in. You can create whatever you want. (Summary: If you use Free-Content in your own projects, even commercial, you must credit TC Blox Studios with a link to us in said project.) --Rule #2: Redistribution and Modification-- You are allowed to download and include our Free-Content in your own commercial projects, of any kind. You are also allowed to redistribute any of the Free-Content from our website on their own, however Free-Content must only be redistributed for free, and you must include proper attribution and a link to https://www.tc-blox.net You are also allowed to modify our Free-Content in any way you wish, and redistribute modifications to our Free-Content. Modifications must be redistributed for free if they contain a substantial portion of the original Free-Content. However, if you redistribute modified Free-Content you must also credit TC Blox Studios as explained in Rul e #1. (Summary: You are allowed to redistribute any Free-Content for free, on their own, if you give credit.) --Rule #3: Derivative Works-- You are allowed to create derivative works based on Free-Content, and you may have copyright ownership over the works if they do not contain a substantial portion of Free-Content. If they do contain a substantial portion, you may have copyright ownership over all parts of the derivative work that were not created or owned by TC Blox Studios. (anything you made yourself) But, if the derivative work contains a substantial portion of our Free-Content, you must include a link to TC Blox Studios as explained in Rule #1. You may also sell derivative works, as long as they add a substantial amount to the Free-Content they are based on. If they do not add a substantial amount, or if they are basically equivalent to a small mod for Free-Content, then you must redistribute it for free. (basically, don't abuse the license to try and sell our Free-Content by editing it slightly) There are no all-out restrictions given by this license on what kinds of derivative works you create. You can create whatever you want. --Rule # 4: Terms Changes -- This license shall not be changed, and any Free-Content held to this license will remain under no other limitations other than the Open-Source 2024 License.

See the Demo Projects we have available for online play Topple The Tower (Legacy) Topple The Tower (Legacy) is free and Open-Source under the Open-Source 2023 License . - Download Demo as .zip - ToppleTheTower Legacy: The first gamedev project I made using the Unity Engine I plan on making a remastered version of this game in the future View Game on Itch.io Keybinds: WASD to move, W rolls you forward, S rolls you back, A and D strafe roll you left and right R to go back to the Main Menu T to swap between Third Person and First Person (in the downloadable version, which is an older version; perspectives are changeable in the menu) Known Issues and Bugs: Camera movement in first person is only on one axis Camera movement in first person is jittery Shadow render length is too short Texture and UI resolutions are too lacking Textures are missing from props Downloadable version forces you to go back to menu to change perspectives (these issues will be fixed in the remastered version, see development activity for more information)

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.

A A

Play APPLE101, a small clicker game where you buy and sell for apples! APPLE101 APPLE101 is Free and Open-Source under the Open-Source 2023 License . View on Itch.io - Play on the Web on Itch.io - Download Demo as .zip APPLE101: A simple clicker game where you buy and sell stuff to make apples. Keybinds: Left Click or Tap to buy and sell. Known Issues and Bugs: Infinite Pineapple price is inaccurate Auto-Soupers cannot be turned off

Welcome to TC Blox Studios, we make games, music, videos, and host information on game development and open source software. Welcome to TC Blox Studios Hi! I'm TonyTCB , aka jimmybob , and I'm a game developer. I'm making a game called Bob Simulator , as well as much, much more ! Games , Projects , 3D Models , Music , Videos , and information for use in projects of all kinds. (as well as a bunch of philosophy! ) We also now offer Content for Minecraft ; composed of Worlds , Skins , Mods , and more ! Join the TC Blox Studios Discord Server: https://discord.gg/GQCH4Hnf99 Only on TC-BLOX.NET: Portfolio About Assets Games Demo Projects Bob Simulator The Movy Chronicles Content for Minecraft Admin Abuse Resistance Yogg Interest Theory Videos Music Contributors Development Activity Help Center and Support FAQ Licenses and Usage: Fair-Use 2024 License Open-Source 2024 License Content License Bob Simulator License Extra: Bobbelfont License Attributing Guidelines Site Version: v4.4.9 Play Video Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Copy Link Link Copied Minecraft is owned by Mojang Studios. We are not affiliated with Mojang Studios or Microsoft Corporation. Gallery I host Rec Room Talk Shows! At least until June 1st when Rec Room shuts down.

Listen to Music created by TC Blox Studios, free to use by anyone as long as you give credit! Music Listen to my music! Music made for people like you! Usage of the music listed here is subject to the Fair-Use 2024 License . (basically, you can use the music in your own projects but you must credit TC Blox Studios for the Music) Download as .zip Bob Music Series Jeff's Dance Off jimmybob 00:00 / 02:00 Jeff's Dance Off v2 jimmybob 00:00 / 06:36 Jeff's Idle Party jimmybob 00:00 / 03:28 Download as .zip TCB Music Series WaveyBlox jimmybob 00:00 / 01:45 NuggetBugget jimmybob 00:00 / 03:24 VrumStellar jimmybob 00:00 / 02:07 ApocalypticWobble jimmybob 00:00 / 02:46 Island Warp jimmybob 00:00 / 02:16 Jellybeat360 jimmybob 00:00 / 02:53 DiscoBlox jimmybob 00:00 / 01:45 Catch 22 jimmybob 00:00 / 03:12 Racing and Tracing jimmybob 00:00 / 01:48 Fast Paced jimmybob 00:00 / 01:10 Electroverse jimmybob 00:00 / 02:45 Throw 44 jimmybob 00:00 / 03:54 The THE jimmybob 00:00 / 01:51 Time Vortex jimmybob 00:00 / 01:38

Addons and Behavior Packs for Minecraft: Bedrock Edition, available for download Minecraft Addons (we are not affiliated with Mojang Studios or Microsoft ) Bedrock Edition / MCPE Colored Cookies Adds colored cookies and cookie blocks. (blocks accessible in creative mode) Download Bedrock Edition / MCPE Little Things Little city blocks. (the little people may be broken because of addon compatibility issues) Download Bedrock Edition / MCPE Construction Blocks Blocks useful for construction. Adds colored bricks, pillars, solid squares, lamps too. Download Apply for Partnership and help Contribute

A story written by Qaz, a continuation of The Cyan Anomaly, a story about a Cyan World accessible through a VR Headset The Cyan Mystery (written by Qaz) She noticed she was in a completely Cyan colored space and could not move in the slightest, it was like she was paralyzed. Suddenly she noticed an unfamiliar face fade in and then… she was awakened. A mother who had recently lost her only child was awakened to yet another strange dream, but this one was different. This has happened ever since she lost her child but this time it was different, she had never seen this strange face before, it felt like it meant something, like it was signifying something was coming for her. The mother has been living out in an old forest cottage she used to go when her own mother and father were fighting. She has been living here ever since she sought out vengeance against the reason she had lost her child. The mother had been so traumatized by the events of losing her child that she had developed this feeling of hatred towards children, like the kids that caused all of her trauma in the first place. The mother had decided she wasn’t finished and was going to attempt to kill the parents of the kids she had murdered. She then took a knife she found in a drawer and then put on a mask to protect her identity. The time was 1:00 AM as she started driving towards her target's house, but she saw something weird on the sidewalks, a group of kids whose faces resembled that of the face she had seen in her dreams, but after looking once more they instead resembled normal faces. She then slapped herself convincing her it was nothing. She had finally arrived at one of the dead kids' houses and had entered through an unlocked window at the back of the house. She then made her way up the stairs quietly until she had made it to the room that both the mother and father of the dead kid were sleeping in. She then raised the knife to the mother sleeping on the other side of the bed to the father, but then suddenly, she froze. She didn’t know why she hadn’t stabbed yet and suddenly, her life flashed before her eyes and she dropped the knife, awakening the couple. The mother screamed and they called the police. Now she was heading to jail confused on why she had froze, and after being taken to a cell with only a bed and toilet, she fell asleep. She found herself in a dream with only Cyan once again, but this time she could move. And this dream didn’t feel like a dream, it felt real. Suddenly the face appeared again and she saw her life flash before her eyes again. But this time it was like she knew she was gone, and then her eyes closed slowly as she went out with the same fate as her son. Hours later the guards found her lying in her bed holding a knife stabbed into herself with both hands, but the guards had already confiscated all of her belongings. The guards checked her pulse and surely enough, she was dead. This marks the end of the Cyan Mystery.