Debate about sending silly scripts

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 May 18, 2010 11:16 pm

How can this be radically different than sending a Lad an ID to re-use?

This is an off-shoot of that ID thread. How can a baiter give a lad a script
deliberately and have that approved by the baiter community ?
Giving a lad a script. I don't see it. Yes the black hole thing was funny and I got involved sending mails to the professor. Now this ID thing comes up and raises the question.

OK if helping lads with a format to bomb out there is 100% approved by all members I'll just shut up and this post can quietly fall down the chart to obscurity.

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:48 pm

Brainiac,
I am on board with you here. I think they are very similar, yet for some reason it is taboo to even mention using an ID, but a ridiculous script is considered funny and awesome. Personally, I don't see a problem with EITHER (assuming the ID is ridiculous), but it seems to be a double standard.

I look at it this way. The odds of a re-used ridiculous ID or Script fooling a victim are very slim, where as the odds of a ridiculous ID or Script tipping off a would be victim is much higher. Could a baiter-made piece of ammo be used in a successful scam? Possibly, but no easier than the scammer just googling another fake ID or using a more believable script. I tend to think that a lad who gets a ridiculous ID or script and thinks it's the perfect tool to use in his scam is more likely to be foiled in his future scamming attempts, as opposed to if he came up with his own "material".

I seem to be in the minority here though...

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:50 pm

I'm looking at differences being the introduction, rather than eye-candy.

It's already somewhat fishy that someone wants to "give you" over $1,000,000 in money that was "lost" in a bank account. Much more so if the grammar is whacked using terminology suggesting the sender is careless, a bigot, and a moron lost in superstitious science.

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:52 pm

Hi Brainiac!
From what I've seen, a silly script is usually given to a scammer when they mistake the baiter for an Oga. Along with that script they are given names and addresses of "victims", who are of course fellow baiters. Then we mass bait the @*&% out of the lad and keep him extremely busy.
My "vote" is yes for wacky formats, no for ID.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:12 am

^^agreed

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:22 am

Please, with all due respect, Fartina and dwatina, I like you both personally, but Fartina didn't you just write that the script is
"given to a scammer by a baiter". OK I understand that they thought it was an Oga who gave it to them to bomb out there. (I was sure I was going to get votes Yay and Nay in this debate) And I'll be the 1st to admit
it was a hilarious Prof. Farnsworth script. And I was a part of it to keep the scammer busy. So you don't see that as giving the scammer something useful ? I guess I'll just chalk that up as 2 votes for give them silly scripts, don't give them silly ID's.

So nobody thinks that format went anywhere else other than the baiting community. ONLY baiters rec'd it. And the scammer didn't make a penny from it. Anywhere in the world. And the next silly script won't be useful either. No chance at all ?

419Eater is my life Joined: 11 Dec 2009 Posts: 316

Sending out an script takes much more time and logistics than sending an ID to a maga.
The script is the connection between lad and reciever (victim).
Silly format - obvious bullsh* - appropriate reaction of the recievers (just ignore), only jokers pretend that it is an phantastic oppurtunity and keep the lad busy.
So this is a good tool for lad-frustation.
And fun for us, to see not only the boring business-proposals, NoK and lotto-sh*t floating en gros in our inboxes.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:33 am

To summarize my earlier post: My vote is YAY for IDs (if they are very ridiculous) and YAY for Scripts (also ridiculous) because I think ridiculous scripts and ridiculous IDs would save a LOT more potential victims then damage they would cause to potential victims.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:55 am

^^^^I'm in total agreement.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:59 am

Brainiac and BIU: I couldn't agree more, gents.

I don't believe it to be unreasonable to believe that it is highly unlikely that a silly ID will actually tip the scales for a lad, making the difference between a vic sending money and not. If a vic sends money to a lad who presents a baiter-made ID, then - and I mean no disrespect to victims of 419 - but they were probably likely to have sent the money without the ID too.

And in the off chance that a silly ID really does cause a payment, does that really throw off the MANY more that will have been tipped off by the same bad ID?

That's my two cents. I don't care for arguing with anyone about it. Just letting you two know that you aren't the only ones that support this.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:03 am

Bait It Up, It looks to me like you just want to argue. You have said your position over and over. Obviously that is your position. Obviously that is your position. Obviously that is your position.

Not every one agrees with every one here on everything or even anything. You made your point. There is not a police system to monitor what you do out side of this forum.

Some people agree with tattoos, some don't. Some agree with safaris and some don't.

You obviously agree with sending IDs and scripts as long as they are ridiculous.

PS I hope I understand your position now. Wink

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:10 am

^^^^There was nothing argumentative about BIU's last post. It seemed to be a concise summary of his stance on the matter.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:25 am

Brainiac--I like you too Smile

I'm in the air about the fake IDs. If they are totally ridiculous then I have no problem with sending them. If it's an ID of Mr. Spock or Jed Clampett or even John Wayne (who's been dead for years). It would probably tip off a possible victim if they saw a passport with any of their pictures.

But if the ID were of a popular actor (such as Mark Harmon, that Clooney guy, Mel Gibson, etc., folks might fall for it and just think the person somehow resembles him).

And I admit I once sent a fake ID to a lad. I used a picture of Lou Costello.

I don't have a problem with either, so long as the majority of possible victims don't fall for it. And so far as the scripts--I have enjoyed the Farnsworth very much Smile

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:26 am

@Paranoid: Yes, instead of defending my position in a topic that includes the word "DEBATE", I guess it would make much more sense to resort to personal attacks like you feel like throwing on me. Wink

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:34 am

Yes, let's remember that this thread is here to foster discourse. You can agree, disagree, stay on the fence, whatever you want but let's not resort to personal attacks. Honestly, I expect a little better from senior members.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Quote:

You can agree, disagree, stay on the fence, whatever you want but let's not resort to personal attacks.

I'll second that.

Back on topic, folks.

Personally I don't see a reason to ever send a lad anything he wants, including ID, and never have.

It has never cost me a bait.

I also don't see any purpose in tinkering with formats.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:44 am

Here's my take on it, lads who have half a brain can recognize a silly format. Sure, it's funny to find a recycled script in your box but the chances of that lad succeeding, even with a decent format, were already slim to begin with. Those are the lads I'll pick for a safari or other special tortures.

I always try to play as dumb as possible and after a couple of mangled, un-viewable or renamed files, most lads give up and chalk it up to me being the senile character I am playing. Every once in awhile, one gets mad and gives up on me because I am not following his commands which means he'd have very little patience with a real victim too.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:45 am

I think ParaNoid stated it quite clearly, and without any personal attack.

You have your opinon about ridiculous ids', a lot of us are against giving the lad anything that could be used as proof of being legitimate, and any id is capable of that.

As ParaNoid said, you know the forum opinion, you don't have to adhere strictly to it, but we would prefer that everyone in Eater respects the majority opinion. A lot of us in Eater also work at Scamwarners, after seeing the damage caused by id that may be stupid to someone in America, but for someone in India, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, who wouldn't know John Wayne, Danny Devito, or Heidi Blum from an elephant, they would accept it as being legitimate, and proof of the sincerity of the scammer.

So how do you propose to make a ridiculous id that would alert people who have never seen, or heard of, any of the well known in America people? People to whom English is probably a 4th or 5th language? If at all. That your lad will also accept, as that is the intention to start with? A picture of Donald Duck? Mickey Mouse? It won't fool the lad, so he will know you're only pulling his chain.

Discuss.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:49 am

I could have sworn this horse died a few days ago, but the beating continues.

dwatina wrote:

If it's an ID of Mr. Spock or Jed Clampett or even John Wayne (who's been dead for years). It would probably tip off a possible victim if they saw a passport with any of their pictures.

What if the victim is in India? Or Malaysia? Or the Philippines? Or Dubai? Or even a 20-something American who isn't a Trekkie, hasn't watched the 1960s TV show 'Beverly Hillbillies' or even the 1970s movie "Green Berets"?

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:52 am

I also feel that ParaNoid stated it quite clearly, and without any personal attack. He also used humour, in an effort to lighten things up. Perhaps this was viewed as sarcasm, which I don't believe was his intent.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 1:53 am

Love the analogy, Juan. Very Happy

I'd love to respond to your stance, but apparently I've reached my posting limit on the debate. Wink

So I will just leave well enough alone.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 2:11 am

I think most of the old guard here has their mind made up about things. I just don't feel that it should prevent us newbs from discussing them. It helps us to understand particular issues and ambiguities rather than simply accepting what we're told without debate. Input and guidance from the veterans and mods is great as they're rich with experience, but we shouldn't be disallowed from engaging in discourse, nor should we subjected to what amounts to intolerance from some members. It's just a discussion, and now BIU has been made to feel too uncomfortable to contribute further. That is a shame.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 2:43 am

What part of

"Eater does not condone sending anything that may be used by a scammer to entice, fool, or otherwise make a victim believe in the legitimacy of the scam"

is not clear.

There have been more than sufficient reasons and explanations, and examples of other methods or ideas that give nothing away and still satisfy the lad, given so far in 2 threads.

Why not start one on ethics next, it has been a while since the last one.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

El Pistolero wrote:

I just don't feel that it should prevent us newbs from discussing them.

Input and guidance from the veterans and mods is great as they're rich with experience, but we shouldn't be disallowed from engaging in discourse.

You've not been prevented from discussing it, there have been several of these threads lately. Wink

The problem, as I see it, and why you're possibly perceiving intolerance is that you are receiving answers and information from senior baiters but then are rejecting them and wanting to continue to debate. Senior members here are helpful and very willing to explain the knowledge they've gained through experience to newer members. They readily do so over and over again.
You certainly don't have to agree with the answers you're given and can privately bait however you want, but please understand that asking members to continue to debate things when they have already explained themselves may make them lose interest or have you being met with a bit of grumbling.

Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 3:00 am

This isn't about the "old guard suppressing the newbs." The threads have not been locked, no jackboots have been used. But it's also not a debate. It's clear that some people think that using fake IDs or scripts is absolutely great. Clearly some of these people are not listening at all to the very cogent explanations of why this is not condoned. That's fine. Anyone can do anything they want in their bait. We can't and won't stop you. But it's pointless to pretend that this is a debate, and to start new posts rehashing the same points.

And I hardly believe that my dead horse comment, or (yet again) pointing out that not every culture recognizes what some Americans might find obvious, in any way "disallows" discourse or should make Bait It Up afraid to speak up. He's certainly made his case, repeatedly. Most of us simply don't agree.

Edit to add: Ima was posting at the same time as me.

Debate about sending silly scripts	View next topic View previous topic