Ethics, ITP's, definitions of, & what is acceptable thre

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.

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

That would be a great nic! Can I change mine to that? Pleeeeeease!

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:34 pm

I really don't see an ethics issue here. The bait was to test the greed of a mugu and to the extent a criminal will do to rip someone off.

In this case the maga was George Bush.
What does that tell you about these scammers.
Nobody is safe, not even Bush Laughing

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:40 pm

It all seems fine to me. They're too far away to smack, so getting them in trouble with their peers is a good way to deliver a smack via remote control.

Like so many great baits.

(edit: how ironic- with that post I'm now a wannabe.)

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:40 pm

Pastor Frank wrote:

That would be a great nic! Can I change mine to that? Pleeeeeease!

Its gone! have a look at the newest member. 419eater I give you.... My wife!

Baiting Guru Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 12237

You magnificent bastard! Wink

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:09 pm

The ehtics of this?? Nahh....don�t have any worries there.
What did the choir members lose? They made some great music, they spent time making music which might be their passion anyways.
The result is stunningly good. And in the end we have a mugu that will get the kicking of his lifetime from the other choir members (who may even might have known in the first place that he is a "yahoo yahoo boy"), once this is over. For me, this is a win-win situation...well....win-win-lose if you include the lad *g* Twisted Evil

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:11 pm

Ethics scmethics.... What ever happened to a nice cup of sweet tea?

Now please excuse me while I'll and revisit the XXL Entertainment archives so that I can have another good laught before going to bed and sleeping soundly.

'night all!

Master Baiter Joined: 18 Dec 2004 Posts: 106

From what SP said, he has not paid the choir. He will be expecting some cash after this. He brought them into this so he would have to sort them out if he wants to avoid a beating.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:16 pm

OK OK I wish I never opened my mouth! I have to say you have all helped change my mind. Very Happy

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

Quote:

you have all helped change my mind.

I'm locking this right here- the first ethics thread I can recall where the ultimate outcome wasn't "if it makes you uncomfortable, don't do it." Laughing

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

These are some more ethic/moral posts started by, Foss, on my bait topic, I have deleted them and copied/pasted them here for the record:

Foss wrote:

I'm sorry, not wanting to be a killjoy, but isn't there a huge likelihood that the members of the choir are all just innocent bystanders? I thought as baiters we had a responsibility not to target the innocent intentionally. While you haven't specifically gone for them SP, you could be impacting them severely. And if he does have a Fiance then it could be harsh for her.

Admitedly, there is the chance that the entire choir is also a bunch of scammers, which would make this is fine with me, but in the event that they are not, even though this is bloody hilarious, I'm not sure that you should be including so many 3rd parties in this. If you get their hopes up and crush them, just because you want to teach one scammer a lesson, would be completely morally wrong. This coming from a man who was considering doing something equally nasty only a few hours ago. Wink

lieu wrote:

@foss please lookise here for that answer. it's been brought up I believe twice (three times now) in the course of this bait.

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104273&highlight=split

See you back here when you're done!

Foss wrote:

lieu wrote:

@foss please lookise here for that answer. it's been brought up I believe twice (three times now) in the course of this bait.

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104273&highlight=split

See you back here when you're done!

I read that, and all I see is people attempting to justify the fact that they are wronging a group of people. I especially liked how someone said that they were 'probably' paid - without actually knowing they have made it an acceptable cost. 'Collateral Damage' is apparently acceptable to people in here.

I'm sorry, but the whole point of baiting is to waste a scammers time so that he has less time to make an innocent person suffer. The minute you decide to include other people who are not part of the scam you have moved away from your core objective and are no better than anyone of these lads. For the western world we focus so much on money that when people steal it we want to get it back. A lot of third world countries have very little but hope, so if you give it to them and then take it away you are honestly no better than any lad attempting to take your money. You are taking what little they have left.

For each of you reading this thinking there is nothing wrong with this approach to the bait then you should seriously take a look at yourself. I generally don't like to raise any kind of ethical argument, because you either have them or you don't. You can choose yourself whether you honesty think harming innocent people is fine, and you can attempt to justify it in any method you feel is appropriate to make it seem okay to you. Personally, I have no desire to make anyone suffer that I do not know is directly responsible for making other people suffer.

SP, I implore you to do the right thing, drop the choir thing in a nice way, and then focus on the other parts of the bait. There is enough there to work with. Just tell them that market research showed that there isn't enough demand for this kind of thing yet or something. Its not hard to do the right thing here. Your choice.

breadcrumb wrote:

^^^ Please, lets not start another ethics of scambaiting discussion in here. We had SOOOO many of them. And in the end we all agree on the same thing: Don�t do anything YOU don�t feel comfortable with in a bait. It�s up to everyone else on how far he wants to go in a bait.

Wurzgnubbel wrote:

I rather think that this bait benefitted the choir people. Would they ever have had this much fun making music?

They are no pro musicians, so cheating them into making music could almost be considered a charity cause.

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

Because I personally just can't get enough of these types of discussions.

edit: Reopened.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:54 am

breadcrumb wrote:

It�s up to everyone else on how far he wants to go in a bait.

If the answer is self-regulation then all posts about ethics are redundant, surely.

Answers.com wrote:

Ethics:a particular system of principles and rules

No point in having rules if we just make our own up - that is anarchy. Is that really what is being advocated?

I believe these threads are useful for one reason, if no others: everything you do and believe should withstand scrutiny. Some of the flaming I have seen suggests that scrutiny is not welcome.

It may be that it isn't welcome because it has been covered so many times before, but scrutiny still has its place. "Always question" I taught my kids.

I would prefer to see a thread on ethics in abstract first, rather the ethics of a particular bait. Lots of opinions out there, that's for sure.

Personally I think the group bait is problematic, while the individual one is ok.

I also think it is now like torturing a wounded animal (ever seen a bullfight?) - he's just too easy to bait (which is a tribute to how he has been handled, I'll admit) - a coup de grace would be better if tastefully and artfully executed.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:22 am

I think the biggest problem is when people get too into their bait. They love the power they have over their lad, and forget about everything else. Either that, or they love the fame and the fact that people are loving what they are doing. So much so that they are willing to overlook any morals which they originally may (or may not) have. All to keep that little rush going.

The reason that people like to move these threads is that they don't like to be reminded that they have a moral conscious. If you didn't care about this then you wouldn't care that it is written, but by moving or removing it you are taking away that little reminder at the back of your mind that what you may be doing is wrong. It helps you justify it to yourself that what you are doing is morally right. Honest it is.

If you don't have the other side of the argument, then you will just be creating a continuous one sided thread which will just perpetuate the problem. All that has been achieved is that anything which may spark a moral conscious has been removed. I'm just disappointed that it was SP who used his mod powers to remove this. I didn't spot other mods doing it, and it even took another mod to open this up.

In general, I work on the basis that if you are willing to harm innocent bystanders in order for you to bait someone, then you are no better than the scammer in the first place. You can justify it however you so feel that the scammer has whats coming to him, and if the innocents get the scammer then it is great, but at the end of the day, you have willingly and intentionally performed an act to harm someone else who never did anything to you.

Everything you think about scammers, you can apply to yourself. Sure, you are not trying to take a fortune off someone innocent, but that is irrelevant. If you are performing an act to harm someone who has nothing to do with a scam then you are just as much a piece of &^% as they are. Ditto if you support this approach to baiting.

Truth hurts

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:29 am

Blimey, they sang a few songs, not run around nekked screaming 'halleluyah'! Whats all this talk of harm and the like? Get real!

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:31 am

MasterBaits wrote:

Get real!

That needs to be reiterated!

Here's a forum that might suit your needs more: http://www.disboards.com/

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:45 am

You have some strange sites in your favourites.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:01 am

I'm with Gordon on this one, instead of all going "ethics schmetics" it is better to discuss the hardpoints of these baits. We are constantly walking on the ethical highwire, and I'm all in for am ethical debate if I think it improves the community in general.

I do think the thread split improves on both discussions. You can't have two discussions in one thread, it would quickly become an unreadable mess.

The Third Party Rule is always the one that is in question in some of the big baits we've seen. A similar debate ensued about YW's Chad-Darfur safari. I suggest reading up on that one again. When you send a lad fruitlessly to WU, you are infringing on the TPR by including WU employees in your bait. When you are impersonating George W Bush, you are inringing on the TPR as well. Yet noone will question these examples. This leads us to conclusion #1 No rule is absolute.

Let's examine the case of the scammer. SP did not directly contract the choir. The scammer contracted the choir. SP is not responsible for any exchange between the scammer and the choir. In short, SP did not violate the 3rd part rule, but the scammer did. The scammer is responsible for all the agreements he made with the choir. Who knows, maybe he will pay them in the end. There has been no agreement, implicit nor explicit, between SP and the third party. Scammers buisness with the choir is, frankly, none of ours.

Which leads us again to the precedent of YW's Cahd/Darfur bait: The scambaiter has no responsibility whatsoever for the scammer. The scammer always has the option not to comply with the baiters requests. Yet he keeps forging on, knowing that in the end he will get a large quantity of money from his magha.
Of course, there are exeptions when the image of the community would be damaged (eg. having a scammer walk around the airport with a sign that says HELLO I. GOTBOMB), entrapment, serious forgery, etcetera. You can make the scammer go as far as you want, as long as you adhere to the big three. Read up on this in the FAQ.

My $0.02

Oh and as far as the "truth hurts" statement goes: your opinion is not true, and neither is mine, or anybody elses. I'm staying within the boundaries of the TPR debate here, but there is a lot more in your last post that is questionable.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:11 am

--> Foss

You wouldn't happen to see right through everyone, would you?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 10:54 am

Is it involving 3rd parties if you use their name - such as GWB?
What if it's Fred Bloggs from down the road who pissed you off last week? Why is one different from the other? Is one different from the other?

Is involving WU staff ok? After all they are doing what they do anyway.
What about UN staff in a war zone, who could be doing other things even though they are doing what they do anyway?

This is why I would like to see an abstract debate which is then tested by introducing baits to see how they stand up to scrutiny - should the 'rules' change or the bait?

There is a fascinating line which could be trod here if personalities don't get in the way..

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:13 am

It is certainly nice to be preached at about ethics by a member who has been here nearly a whole 2 weeks. As has been said before, numerous times, these debates have been had and have been resolved. Read the various linkies.

Nothing new to see here. Just move along.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:14 am

Zorro wrote:

--> Foss

You wouldn't happen to see right through everyone, would you?

Like I've got X-ray specs mate.

In hindsight, I think the agree with you that the ethics side and the topics side should be kept seperate. But somehow people should be reminded that they have a responsibility not to stoop to the level of a scammer. So, hile I am relating to the third parties in general, it is easier if I use the George Bush bait as an example for my arguments.

What I don't think people realise is that you have to view these things in context. For someone in a western civilisation who generally has a whole lot, you have to take yourself out of what you know and walk a mile in another persons shoes.

The arguments people raise about Third parties such as WU employees and things are just ridiculous. I'm talking about harm to a person, whereas someone doing their job, without any knowledge of the impact of what they are doing is a little different.

Dealing to the scammer is fine. Hell, he wants to rip of little old ladies so I really couldn't give a crap about him. Then he approaches this choir and convinces them to join in and he may be able to make a big improvement to their lives (this is where the walking a mile in another person shoes kicks in). These people he has convinced generally have very little in their lives. They basically started off in life with a giant kick to the nuts but unfortunately being born in a country like Nigeria. there is very little that they can do to improve their lives, but they keep on going, find god, faith in fellow man and all that BS.

Then, someone approaches them saying that they have come in contact with someone that can make their lives better and gives them that little bit of hope. Admitedly it is the President of the United States, which is a little farfetched, but no more so than �150m of Nigerian gold which a lot of us clever westerners fall for. Then, after dragging them along for a little bit, the baiter goes and kick them in the nuts yet again. I guess there is the argument that they are used to it, but it seems really rubbish.

So, using this example, lets look at the arguments justify this part of the bait. Mainly it is that the scam artist who has duped them and not the baiter. People may inherently believe this, but to argue against it I'm going to use a real criminal case which occurred in NZ.

A 'P addict (which is a type of highly addictive drug in NZ) conducted a number of armed robberies high as a kite on the drug, during which he murdered a number of people in cold blood. The reason he committed these crimes is to fund his habit he attempted to sell 'P' but then was mugged for the drug. He couldn't pay the manufacturers for it, so the 4 guys who made the stuff told him that he had to commit a robbery. They gave him the weapons and the equipment, and detailed how he should do it. then he killed a man. Scared, they made him do it over and over again, and took the money. When he was caught, these guys were also eventually caught, and sentenced to longer terms than he was.

Now, a baiter has convinced a scammer to include his church choir, and has led them along to believe that they may be able to make a better life for themselves. He has given them the motive, and the means to do this. He ultimately receives the benefit (namely a hilarious video) so why should he be distanced from the scam of the church. He is the driving force for the entire charade, so you seriously have to be kidding yourself if you think that a baiter is not responsible for any actions a scammer does because of a bait.

Now, i am more than happy to refute any other justifications which people like to use to explain why a baiter should be allowed to let a scammer involve a bunch of 3rd parties. just post them below, because I can't be arsed looking for them.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:14 am

^^^^@gordon

While it surely is an interesting idea, I do not think that such a broad debate can be done in a discussion board. It is entirely possible, however, to post one of the question you have just asked. They are very open for debating.

Before you do this, ask yourself: Why? What will the outcome of the debate be, and is this going to benefit scambaiting in any way? If the outcome can not be defined, or it would split the community, or whatever, I do not think that such a discussion would do any good.

The way it is done at the moment, making a side thread for a debate on a particular casus, is (I believe) a very accessible way for everyone to voice their opinion. Every one is presented with a list of facts, and can respond to it if he or she dissaproves of something. The arguments are spread out on the table, everyone makes up their mind, and the bait continues (changed or unchanged).

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:18 am

The only problem with this Duralex, is that the primary people to look at it are going to be those who have an ethical conscious. People who don't, or tend not to want to be reminded of it, never look.

this'll just end up as a one sided argument generally. Just like the other thread which it has been split off from.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:34 am

Well, if you want to raise an argument, make us aware and have us discuss something we all overlooked why not present your claim as what it is: an opinion. We can then all discuss it and either agree or disagree. What - in real life as well as on message boards - will not lead to a fruitful discussion is entering a massive community that's been evolving for a few years and presenting yourself as the high priest of the truth. If you already know *the truth* that doesn't leave much space for discussion.

Other than that I trust in the power of self-regulation within discursive communities. Ethics have never been god-given or imposed by a superior member but are instead a constantly evolving product of communication. Your claim that you are right and everyone else is overlooking something is rather ... well, let's hear what people have to say. Laughing

Regards,

Napoleon Bonaparte

Ethics, ITP's, definitions of, & what is acceptable thre	View next topic View previous topic