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.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:11 pm

[quote="DuraLex"]

Quote:

Understood, at least, in the case of a drug addict and his dealers. We have no reason to assume extended culpability in this particular lad. I think this is an important point in the discussion. The scammer is considered mentally sane, can be held responsible for his actions, etc etc, unless proved otherwise. If this scammer was actually mentally retarded, we would have an entirely different discussion

That means that you are suggesting that a person using their power over another person to commit a wrong on behalf of them is okay as long as the person committing the wrong is of a sound mind.

Quote:

It's impossible for us to assess, and thus to prevent, psychological damage to the choir, but then it is not our fault they got involved into this. This is the scammers fault, he is responsible for bringing them into this. He is also responsble for these "damages". As far as the financial compensation goes, we have no ground to assume the choir would not get paid.

Again, the act is not the point. If they don't feel wronged then it is no big issue I guess, but what if they do. You can only assess this retrospectively, and our actions should be governed in the present, not by what think after the fact.

Quote:

This was one of the hardpoint in YW's bait, though in the end no Mugu's were hurt.

So the end justify the means. Again, looking what happens retrospectively is all fine and dandy, but we have to act before something occurs to ensure that nothing wrong takes place.

Quote:

Not at all. the relation would be the same as the one between you, a building contracter, and the construction workers in a renovation of your house. Should the contractor put them in danger of physical harm (e.g. not abiding safety regulations) you would not be responsible for an accident (even if it occurred in your house).

Depends on what country you reside in. However, if you use your dominant position as the bill payer to make a contractor do something which has the potential to harm someone, then are you still not in anyway responsible. I can probably get you a giant list of court cases which argue completely against the point you just raised.

Quote:

Thanks for reading our arguments, anyway. Unlike some others, I do like a discussion like this.

I'm actually enjoying this. In all honesty, i don't expect to change anyones point of view. Ethical beliefs are inherent, and all I really plan on doing is giving other people things to consider before doing things.

I think the biggest problem is that people are in this just to make scammers do the funniest things that they possibly can (which in general I agree with) but don't actually understand the real reasons behind why they are doing it.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:12 pm

Chill out B - have a smoke! Laughing

Not nice to call people names, I certainly don't consider myself a lad-hugger because I have questions.

Quote:

The issue really is not about what the scammer has done, but at what point is the baiter responsible

Very true.

And newness (or apparent newness) to the site does not equate to lesser ablity to judge ethics etc. Why does this point keep getting raised. Oh yes, the hoary old game of playing the man, not the ball.

Quote:

The essence of this argument turns on whether the choir got paid or not. If they got paid, then there is nothing to debate

Funny - why was my first reaction "Rubbish" and my immediate next one "Quite right"? Give me a while to figure that one out.

BTW I read the Road to Darfur - excellent bait, a real game of chess.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:23 pm

Quote:

I must firmly agree with Gomer and Coronalight. The essence of this argument turns on whether the choir got paid or not. If they got paid, then there is nothing to debate. If they didn't get paid, they will have learned a valuable life skill - don't do the work unless you are sure of getting paid, and I think a great many of us would have suffered this experience and thus learned a life skill.
Personally I believe you could blindfold and handcuff SP, and he would still perform in an extraordinary manner. Keep your sympathies for those scammed of money,love, and dignity.

Mmm... to tell you the truth, I agree with this in principle, being that minor things do not significantly hurt people too much. the only problem, is that a line should be drawn, and when there is too much grey area, it is easier to draw it at one end or the other.

But remember that I was only really using this as an example for 3rd party responsibilty. It doesn't really matter what the scam was, our role as baiters should be to mess with the scammers time, not to do whatever we can to a person to make ourselves have a laugh. We ignore this in the case of a scammer, which is a line I am willing to cross. Don't see why we need to involve innocents and waste their time. They didn't send us spam messages did they?

Quote:

Every brilliant and original bait brings it lad huggers along with it, the huggers are normally new members with very little to zero knowledge off the scum we bait and strangely have no avatar
Another thing i notice is the longer they stay around the less protective they are to the lads.

Just because I am a new member in here doesn't mean that I have not been doing this a while. I have been looking at this site for a while of and on, and only just thought to actually join the forum.

If you read the above, you'd notice letters in Caps Lock stating that I don't give a crap about the lads. In fact, this entire discussion has nothing to do with how to treat lads. Its about innocent third parties. So, until you decide to actually read this and attempt to understand this argument, please refrain from making comments that I am trying to protect the lads. Or in nicer tones - STFU. This is a debate on the ethics of involving 3rd parties, not on whether I am a new person and love lads.

And whats with the point about an avatar? I haven't even worked out how to get my quotes or colours working properly yet (though I noticed that strangely some of them are now- wierd) let along work out where the messages and profile area is. tell you what, when I find it, I'll put up one just for you.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:49 pm

Foss wrote:

This may be a little late for you, but I was looking into getting a lad to export me some Native breeding dogs as part of a scam I am planning, and there is a lovely site which outlines the procedures for exporting things from Nigeria.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:00 pm

4 pages of debate over some footage of people singing?! Rolling Eyes

Obviously I need to hunker down & read that long ass V1ll4ge Ppl thread. Laughing

We'll never know which of them is innocent, which are fellow 419, which are aware the main lad is a scammer, etc. I'm under the impression that if the choir expects payment for singing a few songs then they aren't all that innocent. I swear, soon they will want to get paid just for breathing, they want $ for EVERYTHING! Evil or Very Mad

Also, the lad ditched the ones demanding payment correct? So the ones left were willing to sing for free? So um, what's the problem? Is the debate is it harmful to allow innocent bystanders the lad recruited to sing for free when they were willing to sing for free? Confused

Did they have to sing in crocodile infested waters during mating season? This seems a bit excessive over some singing. For those choir members who may be totally oblivious, well they will learn a a valuable lesson at least: lie down w/ dogs, wake up w/ fleas.

Eric B. & Rakim wrote:

Streets ain't a place for innocent bystanders to stand

Hehehe I went waaaay back on that one Twisted Evil

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:05 pm

GomerPyle wrote:

Foss wrote:

This may be a little late for you, but I was looking into getting a lad to export me some Native breeding dogs as part of a scam I am planning, and there is a lovely site which outlines the procedures for exporting things from Nigeria.

Lol - not actually getting him to send me dogs, and the scam word was a slip of the tougue so to speak. Should have said bait.

Don't have any plans for him to find me a large collection of dogs or anything, just to make him think that I need him to, so that he can go around getting a whole bunch permits and things.

And at no point would innocent people/animals have been involved, so i am not sure exactly what your point is? Perhaps Gomer, if you had of used words instead of colours I could have understood how this fitted into the argument of whether baiters should involve third parties.

As it is, it appears that you are just trying to discredit me or something, which doesn't really work without any explanation now does it?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:09 pm

I would like to be able close the thread here. If I could, I would include this picture.

Many thanks and respect for ScamPatrollers bait.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:10 pm

GordonBennett wrote:

Blah blah blah...As to the suggestion to lock the thread - why? If you don't like it, don't read it. Blah blah blah

If you personally don't like ITP's being involved in your baiting in some manner or other then adopt and use strategies which you consider will not involve ITP's in any way.

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

Foss wrote:

at no point would innocent people/animals have been involved

That's not what you said the other day when I deleted your "w*nking a dog" post, where you wanted to involve an innocent animal!:

The * was added by me

Foss wrote:

who here thinks that I can get a mugu to w*nk a dog. My new alias should provide me with an opportunity to do something really nasty to someone so that they can get me a 'sample'.

Or do you think I may be a going a little bit too far? The dog would enjoy it though, I'm guessing, so it wouldn't be cruelty to animals. And I'll get them to pamper it too and give it cuddles afterwards.

I think you will find that is called beastiality and WOULD be cruel to the innocent dog, who has also not scammed anyone Wink

*** BANNED *** Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 2021

Now we got an ethics thread Laughing

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:23 pm

^^ I'd have to agree, that's a thread worthy of an ethics discussion. What would make someone think a lad would know how to properly whack off a dog ? Rolling Eyes

Aren't those things done by machine anyway? Of course, it would still have to be tested in a real world situation...

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:27 pm

LOL How does one ethically "Milk" a bull? As a matter of interest, how many lads are required to effectively do so?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:29 pm

7of9 wrote:

blah blah blah adopt and use strategies which you consider will not involve ITP's in any way

That's exatly what I do do. What's your point? Every man for himself? I covered that above.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:37 pm

I'm trying hard to stay out of this one. I agree that these threads tend to run in circles, and I have read very few baits that have given me ethical pause.

Still, if I'm an ITP and I get tricked into singing and dancing (directly or indirectly): No big deal.

If a video of that ended up on You Tube for the world to see: Embarrassing, but no harm done.

If the video suggests that I am a 419 scammer and a particularly stupid one at that because here I am dancing around like an idiot because I�ve fallen for one of the grandest baits in baiting history (my compliments to SP): Well now, that is tangible damage. I�d have a hard time showing my face after that. Huge lawsuits have hinged on less.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:46 pm

^somewhere back, page 3 I think, comment about all scammers are guilty until proven innocent.
errm, nope, t'other way round. I do look at what is being written, I do consider the possibility of innocence first, proof of scamming before baiting.
I spent quite sometime, along with 2 others from this forum, carefully 'treading water' over 2 months with a Lad before we could prove beyond doubt that he was 'guilty'. I am sure that others do the same with ones they are not sure of.

As to the ITP question, doesn't w**king a dog rather shoot yourself in the foot?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:50 pm

Scam Patroller wrote:

I think you will find that is called beastiality and WOULD be cruel to the innocent dog, who has also not scammed anyone Wink

Umm... unfortunately it isn't called beastiality. In fact, I could probably find numerous sites on the net detailing exactly how people artificially inseminate breeding animals to ensure that they have appropriate offspring.

For it to be cruel to the dog, it would have to cause it harm, and I can pretty much guarantee that I would have prevented that. And, I realised before the act that it was wrong, and as I posted that you can actually see my mindset change from being a good idea to a bad idea.

So, what you have displayed is an example of me contemplating my potential actions, assessing myself on the feedback, in this case only you SP, which is kind of ironic, and determining that what i was contemplating would probably be wrong.

Whats your excuse?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:51 pm

Scam Patroller wrote:

That's not what you said the other day when I deleted your "w*nking a dog" post

E6 - hit and sunk! Laughing

Now for some delicious pasta recipes, what do you people think? Wink

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:51 pm

Seven of Nine wrote:

LOL How does one ethically "Milk" a bull? As a matter of interest, how many lads are required to effectively do so?

I actuallyhave a friend who did it for a job while at Uni. if you want to ask her questions I can probably get her to get intouch

*** BANNED *** Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 2021

I think we dragged out the discussion of whether making a choir sing is cruel or not a bit to far now.
Im more interested in opinions on canine masturbation, is it morally acceptable.....I think not! puke

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Nice little discussion. Why don't all the serial debaters try their hands at de baiting and then get back to us...

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:56 pm

@Don
SPAM CONFETTI PASTA

Recipe By :
Serving Size : 6 Preparation Time :0:00
Categories : Main dish

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
Vegetable cooking spray
2 c Frozen corn, thawed
1 cn SPAM Luncheon Meat, cut in
-2" strips (12 oz)
1 Red bell pepper, chopped
1 Green bell pepper, chopped
3/4 c Chopped red onion
1 1/2 c Whipping cream
2 tb Chili powder
1/4 t Pepper
12 oz Angel hair pasta, cooked
-and drained
2 Tomatoes, peeled and chopped
1/4 c Minced fresh cilantro

In skillet coated with cooking spray, saute corn, SPAM, bell peppers,
and onion over medium heat 5 minutes or until tender. Transfer
mixture to bowl; keep warm. To same skillet, add cream, chili powder,
and pepper. Bring to a boil; boil 5 minutes or until cream has
slightly thickened, stirring occasionally. Pour over pasta and toss
well. Spoon SPAM mixture over pasta. To serve, sprinkle with chopped
tomatoes and cilantro.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:58 pm

I think to even think it is sick personally.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:00 pm

slowfreddie wrote:

^somewhere back, page 3 I think, comment about all scammers are guilty until proven innocent.

Nah, the point was about the Innocents being innocents until being proven ot be involved. Big difference.

slowfreddie wrote:

As to the ITP question, doesn't w**king a dog rather shoot yourself in the foot?

Yeah, but like i said, I contemplated it, but didn't go through with it. For me it was an ethical issue, because I was wondering if it went too far.

My breeding dogs importation procedures was my initial plan, then while online I thought what about if I did that, that'd be pretty wrong, posted it, thought about it more but by the time I went back in SP had already deleted it, which I totally agree with.

The difference is that I thought about it, realised it was wrong, and didn't go through with it.

Just because I preach about doing things, doesn't mean I don't contemplate them. Sometimes it just takes us few moments to realise that what we are doing is wrong. And I thank SP for reminding me of that when he deleted my post.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:01 pm

MasterBaits wrote:

I think to even think it is sick personally.

I quite agree. Slowfreddie's pasta sounds nasty.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:04 pm

MasterBaits wrote:

I think to even think it is sick personally.

Well, I like to develop plans for baits in advance, and I think of all sorts of potential avenues. This was one part that was incredibly wrong, and I have no intentions of doing that now that I have considered the repercussions of my actions.

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