The Reasoning and Virtue Reward Platform

Views: 65

Written by Abdun Nur

The Reasoning Platform

Presently humanity face nothing but imposed monopoly, the entire structure of extortion and abuse in place globally, exists as a monopoly, this means they can do, basically, anything they like.

There is only one way to end any monopoly, it’s not with violence, or begging, or voting, or petitioning, or rioting, or terrorism, it’s simply through establishing independent alternatives to those monopolies. This means you must take responsibility for yourself, not farm responsibility out to others, it means you must make an effort to improve yourself in order to create something of value, instead of being a parasite of the value of others, or suffering something without value.

In hierarchical systems people rarely gain the ability to reason, reasoning is actively discouraged, as a reasoning soul is not fit to be a slave.

This mean in corporate hierarchical society unreasonable behaviour is the norm rather than the exception, this being a result of hierarchical conditioning, indoctrinated through the fool (school) education model; designed to make people think emotionally not rationally, this allows people to be manipulated, extorted and subjugated to the will of a small elite.

A glaring example of this form of emotional thinking is the woke mindset, where irrationality champions paedophilia, abortion, child mutilation and the perverse re-gendering of small children by mothers and even sometimes fathers, who go as far as forcing dangerous drugs or even irreversible surgeries on their own children, perversely dressing them up and treating them as their opposite sex, the system uses celebrity to promote irrationality, and perversion.

Consider the present ‘woke’ psych-op, where transvestites, gender neutral, non-binary, agender, pangender, genderqueer, two-spirit, third gender etc. replace male and female, in reality the system of control is imposing the dictates of people with serious mental disorders, claiming their delusions are valid and you must respect them.

This is so in your face even irrationalists can clearly see how illogical this is. Now consider a reasoning soul, they suffer from the same concept, where irrational people demand their views, no matter how unreasonable, are valid and their delusions should be respected.

For example, an irrational soul believes in an invisible sky god, no evidence exists in support of such a view, and yet the irrational demand the reasoning soul give respect to their delusions and irrational beliefs, the irrational mind demands this and is outraged if a reasoning soul refuses, the irrational mind claims their views, which are based on faith, indoctrination, tradition or culture have as much value as the views determined through weighing evidence and applying logic to slowly arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Reasoning to truth is the foundation of all common unity models. Anarchic community stands in stark contrast to hierarchy, which is ranking according to relative status or authority, these are dichotomous models, which means they are mutually exclusive, therefore what exists in one model does not exist in the other.

The reasoning platform attempts to provide a method of teaching the skill of reasoning to truth, and a way to test, and so determine the ability level of an individual, at reasoning to truth.

As being unreasonable generates conflict and fosters ill-will, access to many elements of the platforms would be limited, until testing was past, and so determination of possession of the skill of reason, was established. Once proven to reason, a bondsman would have full access to all platform features.

The trivium – Latin for “where three roads meet”, is the ancient method of reasoning to truth and it uses three elements, Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Link: The Trivium

The other element to a complete education is the quadrivium, which consists of arithmetic, astronomy, music, and geometry in the classical model of education, but is not important in developing reasoning for the platforms, however, outside of the platforms, this could be considered, if lacking, to further improve an individuals knowledge, for their own advantage.

Grammar

Grammar is familiar to most readers of a language, and likely a skill they firmly believe they have already mastered. But a lot of people struggle to think logically because they don’t understand enough about what words really mean, which also depends on the source, for example, legalese often corrupts the common meanings, and the nuance. Logical thinking involves nuance (an ability to make fine distinctions), so the more you know about words and their meanings, the greater mental precision in both decision-making and in clarity of understanding, you’ll enjoy.

The schooled mind indoctrination system is designed to create irrationalists, Nikola Tesla viewed this condition as a form of insanity, because insanity is commitment to an irrational conclusion.

If you’re unsure if you’re an irrationalist, examine a belief, that is not based on or derived from a process of reasoning or logic, and if your commitment to that irrational conclusion is unshakeable, then you are an irrationalist.

Faith based beliefs are irrational, as the logical fallacy an appeal to faith is irrational, so for example, if you have a belief  ‘a God exists’, built on faith, and that belief is unshakeable, then irrefutably you’re indeed an irrationalist.

Authority based beliefs are irrational. The logical fallacy appeal to authority is irrational, for example, if you believe viruses exist physically and cause disease because those who claim an authority on viruses say so, and no evidence to the contrary can shake that firm belief, then you are an irrationalist.

There are of course many rules of grammar and a good way to improve your grammar would be to study a grammar guide: Link

Logic

The element of the skill of reasoning, that most have no real knowledge or practice with, is logical fallacies.

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning.

When logical fallacies have been mastered an argument which may appear to be a well-reasoned, one that would pass unnoticed by someone without a good grasp of logical fallacies, would be dismissed outright by someone that can reason. Link: Morality – The Act of Virtuous Conduct

There are two basic concepts for logical fallacies:

Formal: Formal fallacies are arguments that have invalid structure, form, or context errors.

Informal: Informal fallacies are arguments that have irrelevant or incorrect premises.

The Straw Man Fallacy – The entire legal system is built firmly upon “The Straw Man Fallacy”, where an individual has two forms, one of flesh and blood and the other a separate legal personality (i.e., the “straw man”). Re-presenting you with a superficially similar — but ultimately not equal — version of your real stance.

The Bandwagon Fallacy – just because people believe a proposition is true, doesn’t automatically make it true. Popularity alone is not enough to validate an argument, though it’s often used as a stand alone justification of validity.

The bandwagon fallacy is used widely in govern mental Mafia sham elections. The media is used to manipulate the perceptions of voters, where a voters opinion on vote preference can be altered due to the rising popularity of a candidate or a policy position. The aim for the change in preference is for the voter to end up picking the “winner’s side” in the end.

This is presently being used to impose ID cards nationally in the UK where a newspaper creates a poll under the claim it is seeking to determine national support for the I.D cards, where it then falsely claims ID cards have an 80% approval rate.

The False Dilemma Fallacy or The False Dichotomy Fallacy or Bifurcation Fallacy – This common fallacy misleads by presenting complex issues in terms of only two inherently opposed sides, when many possibilities and stances could exist.

This fallacy is widely used. The Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, famously stated, “You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem.”, a perfect example the false dilemma.

The Hasty Generalization Fallacy or the Over-Generalization Fallacy – This fallacy occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient evidence. In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a proposition with some — but not enough — evidence to back it up, and overlook potential counterarguments.

This is a common fallacy in advertising, for example: “Four out of five dentists agree that this toothpaste will whiten your smile and strengthen your teeth.”, for this statement to be true you simply find five dentists, four that were paid to endorse your toothpaste, however it is presented in a way that expresses a logical fallacy because it has no specifics, so an irrational mind would easily believe 4 out of 5 of all dentists in the world, so the logical fallacy is designed to mislead the reader.

The Slothful Induction Fallacy or the Appeal to Coincidence – occurs when someone denies a conclusion that can be reasonably inferred with evidence and, instead, claims that the events were coincidental.

The medical profession use this fallacy a great deal, “Strong evidence exists that vaccines result in the generation of disease. However doctors insist that is just coincidence and that such related disease is caused by something other, that’s not evident.”

The Correlation/Causation Fallacy or False Cause Fallacy – when two events occurring together which are then taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship.

Even if there is a correlation between two variables, we cannot conclude that one variable causes a change in the other. This relationship could be coincidental, or a third factor may be causing both variables to change.

An example: “Our blog views were down in April. We also changed the colour of our blog header in April. This means that changing the colour of the blog header led to fewer views in April.”

The Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy – where personal experience or a singular example is used to support an argument or position instead of compelling evidence.

This is a very common fallacy in marketing, in the form of testimonials, for example “a five star hotel” or business reviews, this is attempting to make something that is always subjective, quantitative.

The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy or Observational Selection Fallacy – This fallacy gets its colourful name from an anecdote about a Texan who fires his gun at a barn wall, and then proceeds to paint a target around the closest cluster of bullet holes. He then points at the bullet-riddled target as evidence of his expert marksmanship.

This fallacy is rampant within academia were the majority of research relies on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where researcher and academics cherry-pick data clusters based on a predetermined conclusion. Instead of letting a full spectrum of evidence lead them to a logical conclusion, they find patterns and correlations in support of their goals, and ignore evidence that contradicts them or suggests the clusters weren’t actually statistically significant.

The Burden of Proof Fallacy – If an individual claims that X is true, it is their responsibility to provide evidence in support of that assertion. It is invalid to claim that X is true until someone else can prove that X is not true. Similarly, it is also invalid to claim that X is true because it’s impossible to prove that X is false.

In other words, just because there is no evidence presented against something, that doesn’t automatically make that thing true. If it can be asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

The Personal Incredulity Fallacy – If you have difficulty understanding how or why something is true, that doesn’t automatically mean the thing in question is false. A personal or collective lack of understanding isn’t enough to render a claim invalid.

The “No True Scotsman” Fallacy or Appeal to Purity – a claim that all people belonging to a certain group have the same trait, and those in that group who do not share that trait are not really part of that group.

The Personal Attack Fallacy or The Ad Hominem Fallacy – means “against the man,” when you attack someone personally rather than using logic to refute their argument. Instead they’ll attack physical appearance, personal traits, or other irrelevant characteristics to criticise the other’s point of view.

“Two Wrongs Make a Right” Fallacy or The Tu Quoque Fallacy – means “you too,” is an invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering criticism with criticism — but never actually presenting a counterargument to the original disputed claim.

For example: ” One member of the couple says the other has been behaving badly and the response is that he or she has behaved just as badly.”

The Fallacy Fallacy or Argument from Fallacy  – just because someone’s argument relies on a fallacy doesn’t necessarily mean that their claim is inherently untrue, it just means their argument doesn’t actually validate their premise.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy – when someone assumes that certain small actions could lead to large bad outcomes, although there is no direct relationship between those outcomes and the actions.

Example: A state government is debating whether or not they should lower the voting age. A member of parliament says that if they were to allow for a lower voting age to 17, then 16 year olds would start insisting on the right to vote! If we lower it to 17, why not 16? Before long, babies will be voting!

The Equivocation Fallacy – meaning ‘equal voice.’ When someone deliberately uses certain words or sentences to mislead or deceive another, because when you choose those specific words or sentences they may mean something else than their actual meaning.

This is the foundation of the legal system, which uses legalese to transform common English words, allowing deception and fraud to dominate all legal discourse.

The Post Hoc Fallacy – in which an earlier event seems to be the cause of a later event.

Example: The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy or Argument From Ignorance Fallacy – when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it.

Example: There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of an individual, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth.

Example: The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler’s army.

Moral Equivalence Fallacy – This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.

Example: That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Stalin (Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili).

Appeal to Faith Fallacy – faith is always a fallacy, used to justify a conclusion. It is the assertion that one must have faith in order to understand or accept the argument.

Appeal to Tradition Fallacy – asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it.

Example: The town has always had a parade on the 4th of July and it has always proceeded through the town square. We cannot have construction this summer because we cannot change the route of the parade.

Appeal to Emotion which includes all emotions such as the Appeal to Pity Fallacy – Pathos means to persuade an audience by purposely evoking certain emotions to make them feel the way the author wants them to feel, in order to accept an argument as true. The four Emotional Magnets: Safety (appeal to fear, insecurity), Value (appeal to greed or danger of loss), Experience (empathy, sympathy, pity), and Achievement (“argument from prestige” is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong, appeal to vicariousness)

Govern mental propagandist use appeal to emotion fallacies all the time, the climate change scam is rife with them. Example: Global warming is a disaster that will result, if we do not follow the governments course of action, in global sea levels rising 10m, protect mother earth now.

The Appeal to Authority Fallacy or The Appeal to Expertise or The ad Verecundiam Fallacy – concerns appeals to authority or expertise. The problem of taking something as truth because the one claiming it, is a claimed authority, instead of taking evidence directly to prove a claim.

Example: The medical profession is built on proven science. This seems true, however modern medicine is founded on germ theory and viruses as the cause of disease, however the evidence refutes these as the true causes of disease. The evidence shows that terrain theory is actually the true basis of understanding disease, so to take a doctors opinion alone would then not be truth, but the expression of their false beliefs.

Just because someone in a position of power, or who has qualifications in a topic, claims something is true, doesn’t make it true. You see this fallacy a lot online, people dismiss an argument on the grounds you have no authority, no position of power or qualifications granted by a fool (school) certification board.

The Appeal to Force Fallacy or Argumentum ad Baculum – “argument from the stick” A fallacy committed when an arguer appeals to force or to the threat of force to make someone accept a conclusion.

Example: The senator was told that if she did not support the tax reformation bill, her chances of being re-elected next fall would be very low.

The Red Herring Fallacy or The Half Truth Fallacy – irrelevant or false information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information.

This is a fundamental fallacy of controlled opposition agents, like Russel Brand, Noam Chomsky etc.

Example: Son: “Wow, Dad, it’s really hard to make a living on my salary.” Father: “Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week.”

The Anthropomorphic Fallacy or The personification Fallacy – is our tendency to attribute human emotions and characteristics to inanimate objects and aspects of nature, such as plants, animals, or the weather.

Example: The government passed a new law today.

The subjectivist fallacy – occurs when one concludes that something is true for one person (a subject) but not true for another person (another subject), when, in fact, it is true objectively for all people.

Example: Smoking is unhealthy for most people, but not for me.

The Fallacy of Hypostatisation or The Reification Fallacy – happens when someone thinks of an abstract concept as if it was a concrete thing.

Example: someone who says “justice demands” something. Justice is really an abstract concept and has no way to “demand” anything.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy or The Fallen Cost Fallacy  – is the human tendency to stick with endeavours in which we’ve already invested time, money, or other resources even when changing course would be the more logical choice.

Examples: keeping an incompetent employee on staff rather than replacing them because the company has already invested tens of thousands of dollars training them. Or, another example is, a woman that argues to stay with a husband that beats her, because of the investment of time and effort she’s put into the relationship.

Begging The Question Fallacy or Arguing in a Circle Fallacy – when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

Example: God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.

These are more logical fallacies, and software could be developed to practice identifying logical fallacies to master this aspect of reasoning to truth.

Link: Master List of Logical Fallacies

You Cannot, and Do Not Need to, Prove a Negative

This is a fundamental concept of reasoning, no one needs to prove something that does not exist, as the reality that there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence is all the evidence that is needed to establish a base of none existence, the burden of proof always lies with the one making the positive claim. If at any future point evidence is discovered, and so you could prove the existence of the concept, thing or function positively, as existing, it would in contrast be proven. But without evidence the reality is always, you cannot, nor need  to, prove a negative.

Evidence is Key to Reasoning

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens

Rhetoric

Rhetoric aims to study the techniques writers or speakers utilise to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

This can be used in two ways, reason based rhetoric and fallacy based rhetoric.

Political rhetoric is based on appeal to emotion and logical fallacies across the board, and once you have mastered the identification of logical fallacies in discourse, those that use political rhetoric have no ability to persuade.

“Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.” Plato

The only way to get better at rhetoric is to practice with feedback.

Organising regular meetings with others socially, with the intention of discourse and the friendly exchanging of ideas locally, possibly through the social media element of the platforms, would be an ideal way to develop this skill.

Testing the Skill of Reasoning to Truth

How can you determine if someone can reason to truth, simple, ask them to show their reasoning. If one single thing proves, irrefutably, something is, or is not true, you do not need to prove or disprove that question further, for example the moon has a gravitational effect on the oceans, but it is a third the mass of the earth, and the earths gravity only has any force 3200km from its surface, the moon is 384,000 km from the earth, in which case it is impossible for gravity to be an attraction of mass, and it must therefore be an effect from a different mechanism: Link: Is Gravity an Attraction of Mass?

For example you ask a question:

“Is the Earth a spherical toroidal globe?” Y/N

Now if they answer YES, you ask them what evidence makes them believe the Earth is a spherical planet?

If they answer NO, you ask them what evidence makes them believe the Earth is flat, or whatever other shape they believe it may be?

If they can provide evidence to support their belief, that belief is then reasoned, if they cannot then their belief is not reasoned, but at any point during the test they can change their answer, if they discover the evidence does not support their original conclusion.

They answer a series of five question, randomly generated from a large pool. A few example questions:

“Is the sun a nuclear furnace?” Y/N

“Is gravity an attraction of mass?” Y/N

“Does CO2, which is 0.35% of the atmospheric gases, effect global temperatures?” Y/N

“Are Nuclear weapons real, can they compress purified radioactive material by surround it with a network of explosive devises to generate a nuclear explosion?” Y/N

“Does land subduct back into the magma of the earth as tectonic plates move? Y/N

“Do vaccines provide any protection from disease, through the creation of antibodies?” Y/N

“Do viruses exist?” Y/N

“Does sodium fluoride protect teeth?” Y/N

“Can iron oxide, covering the surface of Mars, be generated by any other process than oxygen generated by living organisms?” Y/N

“Can the volume of empty space be warped or twisted?” Y/N

“Is the Earth slowly expanding like an inflating balloon as it endlessly absorbs energy?” Y/N

“Does the aether exist as described by Nikola Tesla?” Y/N

“Does any external entity of a god/s exist?” Y/N

“Does the 5G telecommunication network have any adverse effects on human health, meaning is it fully safety tested to demonstrate it has no adverse effects?” Y/N

“Are germs the main cause and generator of disease?” Y/N

“Can high cholesterol cause heart attacks?” Y/N

For example, let’s say the question was:

Did man walk on the moon? Y/N

You answer yes:

The bondman states with reference: “They have physical proof they went to the Moon, they brought back rock.”

System responds: The main proof sighted of the moon landing are the moon rocks that were claimed to be brought back from the moons surface: “A moon rock was given as a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969 by the U.S. ambassador to The Netherlands, J. William Middendorf II, during a visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin, soon after the first moon landing.

Researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam immediately doubted the rock was from the moon, and began extensive testing. The tests concluded the rock was petrified wood. U.S. embassy officials were unable to explain the findings.” Link

Bondsman: The moon landing was filmed and beamed back to Earth.

System rebuttal: “Buzz Aldrin said during an interview with then-late-night TV host Conan O’Brien. “There wasn’t any television, there wasn’t anybody taking a picture. You watched animation.” 

Robert Stone, director and writer of the PBS show “Chasing the Moon”: “that what people initially watched on TV was a re-creation of what was happening in space.

They had actors dressed up in spacesuits,” Stone said. “They had animation. “ Link

This would continue.

Did man walk on the moon? You answer no:

The system claims: “With a powerful amateur telescope you can see the Apollo landing sites and, if you look at the photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, you can spot the remnants of the Apollo missions yourself.” Link

The rebuttal of that claim by the bondsman. “The smallest object visible on the moon, from the Earth, even using the Hubble telescope in Earth orbit, is something about 315′ wide. That’s a lot larger than the remnants of the Apollo missions, so it would be impossible for an amateur astronomer to see the Apollo landing site.” Link

Bondsman’s rebuttal: If the American government did fake the moon landings, any photographic evidence supplied by them after the fact, from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter would not be trustworthy.

System response: “Reflectors left behind by the Apollo missions can reflect a laser back to Earth, and produce incredibly accurate measurements of the distance to the moon.”

No one has independently proven that you can fire a laser at reflectors on the moon, to fire a laser at the reflector on the moon “It will probably cost a couple million dollars for the equipment, a year to write the software and a year to get permissions.” Bill Otto Studied Physics & Chemistry at The University of Alabama in Huntsville Link

This would continue, and the other missions to the moon examined also, and an ultimate conclusion drawn from all the evidence.

Bondsmen already on the platform, that can already reason to truth, can volunteer if they wish, to examine the answers given and determine if the individual being tested, who is not identifiable to them on the platform, has mastered the skill of reasoning to truth. There could even be a small charge for the individual taking the test, to pay for the time a volunteer gave to check the answers.

This may appear difficult, but the skill of reasoning is worth the effort to master, and is practically as important as being literate or numerate.

Reward in Standing for the Practice of Virtues

“The shortest and surest way to live with honour on the Earth is to be in reality what we would appear to be; all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice and experience of them.” Socrates

There are twelve basic virtues, all virtues are based around anima (an individual’s true inner self) not persona (an individual’s social façade or front) (See – Morality – The Act of Virtuous Conduct):

Integrity (the basis of Innocence): be honest in all your dealings

Discipline: the creation of beauty, in the dedication to an objective, or the edification of other souls.

Hospitality: expressed through kindness, generosity, openness towards other souls

Self-reliance: non-conformist, independent in thought and deed, the expression of free will.

Industriousness: never sacrifice your energies in idol folly, instead invest them in your passions

Perseverance: impossible things are accomplished through persistence in a course of action, a purpose, in spite of difficulties, obstacles, or discouragement.

Respect: to act courteously, and with concern is a reciprocal obligation.

Courage: the ability to meet danger and difficulties with firmness.

Honour: unswerving moral dependability.

Compassion: to empathetically bear the suffering of others.

Sincere Honesty: adherence to the truth, and fairness in conduct.

Dedication & Accountability: Standing-by others in defence or support, through a willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions.

These are not to be confused with religious virtues, which are built around persona not anima. Charity – Hope – Faith – Temperance – Prudence

The Backfire Effect

There is currently a debate in the literature as to whether backfire effects exist at all, as recent studies have claimed to have failed to find the phenomenon, even under theoretically favourable conditions, what evidence that does exist, suggests that backfire effects may only occur when a belief is strong, and the issue is currently connected with an individual’s religious, racial or social identity. However, as an anecdotal observation, many in online social media threads exhibit these effect, or something similar.

A backfire effect occurs when an evidence-based correction is presented to an individual and they report believing even more in the very misconception the correction is aiming to rectify. When our deeply held beliefs are challenged with contradictory facts, we tend to double down on those beliefs and defend them even more, instead of changing our minds. This is a cognitive bias called the backfire effect.

There are claimed to be three kinds of backfire effects:

Familiarity Backfire Effect – is a cognitive bias that causes people to remember misinformation better, and to remember it as being true, this occurs when the original lie is repeated within the correction. For example, if one were to try to correct a misconception and stated that “apricot seeds do NOT contain arsenic” the correction repeats both “apricot seeds” and “arsenic” thus making the original misinformation more familiar. 

Overkill Backfire Effect – is a cognitive bias that causes people to reject complex arguments in favour of ones that are easy for them to understand. Presenting proven evidence can be cognitively taxing to process and the individual will simply keep believing the lie, because it far easier, as often if they accepted the evidence as true, would mean they’d may have to do something about it.

World-view Backfire Effect – is a cognitive bias that occurs when someone is motivated to defend their world-view against proven evidence that contradicts their belief system, so, they double down in their false belief, rejecting, so being dismissive, of proven evidence that threatens their world-view.

Tokens of Virtue

On the platform any bondsman can buy tokens of virtue, each token costing 1 TME.

They can buy as many tokens as they wish and they can give these tokens to any other bondsman on the platform.

They cannot give these tokens to themselves.

Each token, or portion of tokens given all together, must have a valid explanation attached, related to an event, virtue is an outward practice of an internal reality.

The tokens cannot be given as chicanery, and if any explanation is proven to be false, would generate a dishonour for both the recipient and the giver (three dishonours within any 100 month period across all platforms results in a ban from the closed bond). For this reason any recipient can choose to reject any offer of tokens.

If it’s proven that deception was intended through the display of virtues, to improve standing, and generate a false perception, all future tokens given would be closely scrutinised until the 100 month period of the dishonour had ended.

Any bondsman can refute the honesty of an explanation, and provide any evidence in support, which would then go to arbitration.

The tokens are displayed for anyone to see when they interact with the recipient of any tokens, and the attached explanation as to why the tokens were given can be examined. If the same bondsman gifts virtue tokens to a recipient on several different occasions, the system does not recognise in display more than one reference altruist, but does increase the total of tokens collected within the past 100 month period. So for example it may say 580 virtue tokens by 5 altruists.

The token is not about the value of the token as a medium of exchange the recipient gains, but about the recognising of the value of the recipient of the token, and the standing they hold in community, and the love and appreciation others wish to express.

After a 100 month period the token would be removed from display, as virtues are a continual practice.

A bondsman’s trust rating is effected by the tokens of virtue they receive from different individuals, it is not the amount of tokens which have a very slight effect, but the number of different bondsmen that gave them, which has a large effect on a trust rating. Link: Morality – The Act of Virtuous Conduct