Are we just hitting the lads who suck at scamming?

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:06 am

^^ Who are you quoting there? Confused

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:34 am

Titania wrote:

It would be lovely to think that mass-baiting a new scammer might make him think twice about scamming, but I hold out faint hope for that. Sad

It happens, "Raymond James" was beautifully cheque lad mass baited and became quite close to one of the characters played by Dog Dine. After what ended up as months of frustration Ray started confiding and became quite disheartened, spilling the beans about his attempts at scamming, tools the scammers were using for spamming, rootkits for Linux installs to install fake bank sites, all sorts. He grew more and more disheartened whilst seriously believing in his new confidant B0vis (the character). We had a lot of fun with Ray along the way, but seeing him so despondent and looking for a real job as scamming wasn't paying off (especially once a real oga/chopper joined in too) and he'd spent considerable cash by anyone's standards chasing the dream. It does happen, and that time we were lucky enough to see the transformation, I just hope it was permanent.

In the West, a lot of people play the lottery in the hope of becoming rich, even though evidence suggests it's rare we all see and hear reports of successful players. I suspect scamming is similar, you pay for cafe and travel etc time hoping for a payoff, most scammers lose money at it but keep going for promised riches. If we keep going at the low-hanging fruit, we can slowly shift the balance of perception over to it being a less attractive option, but there will always be players. Straight baiting is essential for this, but the odd bait++ like Chad keeps the energy and momentum up whilst attracting press attention spreading the preventative word. I'm not convinced motivation is as important as results - a grumpy baker can still make good cakes, and malicious baiter can still reinforce the negative message.

My 2p

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:35 am

^^^

WaxyMongrel wrote:

I'm certainly not passing judgment on anybody - I laughed as load as anyone at the Chad bait. I just feel that fighting scam has been established as a blanket excuse and that it is incumbent on us to decide the real reasons we do what we do, and whether we are having the effect we believe we are, before we can be sure that our actions are in fact moral.

The OP, Mugatu.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 05 Oct 2008 Posts: 15

Mugatu wrote:

WaxyMongrel wrote:

then certain scam-baits are moral and others are not.

Ah, but then you're bringing morals into the mix.

I'd say that 99% are inarguably moral. If you want to discuss the morals of the (extraordianry) Abeche bait (and those few that are similar) then there is a seperate thread for that:

Yes, yes I am. I happen to believe that morals are good. What do you think?

The Abeche discussion seemed mostly to pertain to the ethics of putting the scammers in dangerous situations, rather then whether it is O.K. to screw around with people on the internet if they happen to be scammers. I feel this is a separate , but no less important, discussion.

I feel this also a good point to reiterate that I think that it is alright to punish peoples who's intentions are immoral, but in a general society I am in the minority there. I'm simply highlighting a discrepancy between people's rationales (fighting scams) and the actual effects of their actions. If people look at this thread and decide that they don't really care then that's fine, but I believe that people should be encouraged to consider exactly what they are doing when their bait reaches a certain level of extravagancy.

And the argument that these people are doing this to advertise the scamfighting cause just doesn't hold water. It may be a side-effect of what they do, but that's not why they're doing it.1

1. Even if that is the reason for some, it is certainly not the reason for all so this is still an issue worth addressing. I also wouldn't be so quick to lump yourself in with the set of "Groups which perform immoral actions to receive attention". Finally, why is this a footnote?

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

WaxyMongrel, how well do you know what we do here? How much of the forum have you read? Please visit this thread: http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148333
Which is not just about the ethics of the Chad bait, but became an all purpose ethics thread. Much of what you are saying here was just discussed at length, two weeks ago.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:46 am

WaxyMongrel wrote:

I also agree that people who close down websites and bank-accounts are genuinely helping to fight scams, but they are by no means the majority of scambaiters.

Really? What are you basing that on? Most baiters here report accounts and shut sites down, even if they only come across them in the course of pursuing something more entertaining. On the other hand, many baiters here go straight for accounts and sites. I would think then it's the opposite.

Quote:

I guess my hope is to get people to consider whether they are scam-baiting because they want to help scams or because they enjoy screwing around with people, and how effective they are being.

Those two things are not exclusive, and there's really no reason to choose between them. Everyone here has different motives in different degrees. It's short-sighted to try to cram us all into one myopic definition.

Ima Baeder wrote:

Let me save you some time: Luckey is a sadist vigilante, and I'm not. Laughing

Don't listen to her, she's a baiter- that means she lies just for fun. I'm nothing more than a minor trouble maker. She's a card-carrying sado-gilante.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

The sadist vigilante in denial wrote:

Don't listen to her, she's a baiter- that means she lies just for fun. I'm nothing more than a minor trouble maker. She's a card-carrying sado-gilante.

Ah, who's lying now! I never got a card! HAH!

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:56 am

I blame Jojo and the Prof, but mostly Jojo. This Chad bait gives a false image of scambaiting to a lot of psychoanalytic new members. Wink

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:02 am

If a scammer enters my inbox with the intent to defraud me of cash, then I do not care to differentiate some as being worthy of baiting and others not.

As most work off scripts that they may have taken from some other scammer, I have no way of making such differentiation even if I choose to. Does it make a difference if someone shoots you with their own gun or someone else's. They all want one thing and their reasons or expertise are irrelevant to me. I alter my tactics in the way that they do - to snare scammers whoi have managed to avoid me so far. That is relevant as I frequently mass bait, and it is possible that some may recognise my baiting scripts.

As a fisherman cannot select which fish takes his hook, I cannot either, and indeed the scammer's use of scripts makes it more difficult. They all want to appear smooth and polished.

If they would grade themselves under some internationally agreed protocol, I'd happily select the more sophisticated ones to torment, but then they'd all play dumb.

My own dumb Lad is persistent beyond belief, and will not give up his scam. In a perverse way it is his jaw dropping persistence that makes him dangerous AND a baiter's dream. He won't let go, and he has only one intention. If at any stage he'd unlock his jaws from my wallet, the bait would end.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 05 Oct 2008 Posts: 15

Ima Baeder wrote:

WaxyMongrel, how well do you know what we do here? How much of the forum have you read? Please visit this thread: http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148333
Which is not just about the ethics of the Chad bait, but became an all purpose ethics thread. Much of what you are saying here was just discussed at length, two weeks ago.

I will admit I am not an intimate part of the scam-fighting world. I do know that there is a lot of scam-baiting that goes on that isn't publicized - perhaps this plays into your point about advertising, but you certainly don't hear about the bland baits. So my knowledge is limited to a certain type of bait. But that's alright because that's the type that my point addresses.

As for the ethics threads - I did read the first two pages of that thread but it degenerated into a discussion of whether the spambaiters were as bad as the scammers. I felt that that wasn't really related to my point. I also read 'The Ethics of Scam-Baiting' but couldn't find any related points addressed.

Edit:

Quote:

I blame Jojo and the Prof, but mostly Jojo. This Chad bait gives a false image of scambaiting to a lot of psychoanalytic new members.

While the Chad bait is the funniest, most entertaining example, it's certainly not the only one in which stopping scam's took a backseat to messing with these people.

GomerPyle wrote:

If a scammer enters my inbox with the intent to defraud me of cash, then I do not care to differentiate some as being worthy of baiting and others not.

That's fine. I really absolutely genuinely believe that you have the right to target immoral people. I just don't think it's a decision that should be made lightly.

Elite Baiter Joined: 17 Sep 2004 Posts: 1269

Keep reading that ethics thread WM. Wink

More ethics threads, all in the last few months:
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142086&highlight=ethics
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149443&highlight=ethics
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149010&highlight=ethics
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145500&highlight=ethics
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145258&highlight=ethics
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140075&highlight=ethics

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:26 am

I've never NOT messed with a scammer I've contacted.

Messing with scammers is what I do.

They're not close enough to hit with a baseball bat.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:28 am

Ima Lying Baeder wrote:

The sadist vigilante in denial wrote:

Don't listen to her, she's a baiter- that means she lies just for fun. I'm nothing more than a minor trouble maker. She's a card-carrying sado-gilante.

Ah, who's lying now! I never got a card! HAH!

I rest my case.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

That is absolutely hysterical. Thank you. I shall treasure it always. I do like you so. Laughing

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:34 am

All depends what your goals are, if you just want to waste time and resources and your lad opens up possibilities to mess with his mind too, that's a nice advantage you can't let go.
Read the Tina&Joe story of Rumbero ( http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133248&start=0) and that poor guy is completely lost, doesn't know what to believe and what is real, it will be a long time until he is able to bait again with any success if he even dares to try it again. The least resistance will sent him running away for safer ground, just what a possible suspicious victim needs to do the same.
You're dealing with criminals that operate "safely" in a legal gap and they have no mercy for their victims, forcing them to get a second mortgage and spending all their retirement money and leaving them broke forever. These nice guys don't deserve the same treatment as your neighbor or family, even if you treat them harsh, it's just words and their greed that makes them do it. Just like they play their victims.
I never feel sorry for them and you wouldn't either if you would read some of the stories posted on scamwarners.
You wrote that you don't know everything about baiting, what did you base this opinion on then Question

Or are you just throwing oil on the fire Question

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 05 Oct 2008 Posts: 15

(To Above - Keyboard is still not making the arrows. Edit: writing to above apparently takes to much time, I'll be more specific Special K)

I'm reading through them as - well not exactly as, but in the same time frame - as I type. I do apologize if this issue has been broached before. Perhaps the ethics page is due for an update, if people need to sift through a dozen threads to find a pertinent discussion they will keep posting new threads.

Quote:

You wrote that you don't know everything about baiting, what did you base this opinion on then? Or are you just throwing oil on the fire?

My opinion is based on having read the entire front page as well as a few of the other scams. I would be lost trying to extract information from an email-header or trying to photoshop a receipt. The question was prompted by a certain type of baits, I'm not sure why an absolute knowledge of all baiting is necessary to address the question.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:56 am

Forgive us if we seem impatient, the topic does come up regularly, and some of us are battle weary.

There's nothing wrong with questioning one's ethics, I think it's fair to say that anyone who has been here for a while has weighed the relevant points and found a balance that suits them.

Edits: typos

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:57 am

Quote:

Are we just hitting the lads who suck at scamming?

That has been answered before, if we did, then the lads that suck (don't make the money) couldn't pay to rent the servers to set up the DOS attack for four weeks last year, we hurt the big guys and maybe a few suckers too and we hurt them anyway we can.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:18 am

The lads who suck at scamming are my favourite. They are usually the most impatient, ready to believe any old thing you throw at them. They are also the type of lad who ends up travelling across a country to find a trunkbox of all things. The irony in that is possibly the funniest thing you'll ever hear.

Smarter lads who do make a living out of scamming are also great to bait. Getting them to believe your fantasy is always a feat of skill, technique and great manipulation. We're like Ocean 11, except there's twenty-odd-thousand of us, and we don't have any financial gain. Oh, and if we're like Ocean 11, I'm more of a Brad Pitt type, and not just because I look exactly like him.
Very Happy

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:22 am

I'm a big fan of irony in the real sense of the word. Laughing

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:26 am

Socratic, dramatic or just good ole fashioned 'irony'?

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:28 am

Quote:

lads who do make a living out of scamming

Could you rephrase that Brad Laughing

Edit: and Brad did so it never happened Laughing

Thanks Brad

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:32 am

Yes. I edited my post, so it never happened.

Laughing

Whew Bill. For a minute there I looked like a real idiot. Whew...

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:38 am

Nurse Nasty wrote:

Socratic, dramatic or just good ole fashioned 'irony'?

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm going to go with all of the above.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:38 am

Is it just the ones that suck at scamming? No. I don't think so.

I'm currently running two baits right now. The first one, his initial format was horrible. Badly spelled and punctuated; one sentence. I responded to it for giggles. To my surprise, the guy seems to have a decent grasp of English. His emails are fairly lengthy and, even if half of it's scripted (which I'm sure it is), it's like night and day between his initial and his current emails. Judging by his email address changes, I think I may have gotten passed up the chain to someone more important/successful. I'm pretty sure this guy could get a victim to hand over money fairly easily.

The second guy, I have little doubt that he's small fry. All he does is demand I send him several hundred dollars in very brief emails. This guy barely knows English and I'd be surprised if he ever attracts anyone this way.

So why am I still baiting the second guy? At the very least, I'm hoping that he doesn't turn into the successful kind. Frustrate him (and the first) to no end, make them fill out forms, etc. Maybe the 2nd guy will think twice about scamming as a career choice (which I doubt) or maybe he'll be so busy that he won't be able to become successful. Either way, I "win".

Let's say that there are (Warning! Fake statistics incoming!) 10 successful scammers for every 1,000. If baiters can keep just 5 of those successful ones busy and keep most of the others too busy to take money from real victims and becoming successful, that's a pretty significant dent.

As said in another thread (maybe even the Chad one), the small-time scammers are just one gullible person away from becoming big-time successful ones.

Are we just hitting the lads who suck at scamming?	View next topic View previous topic