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: Thu May 31, 2007 2:04 pm

thefife wrote:

If the ITP gets to have a smashing good time doing something they enjoy anyway I don't see the problem

For myself I see the problem being when the truth is revealed. You don't have to suffer physical pain to feel pain.

Here's a wrinkle - if the bait is ended in such a way that the ITPs don't realise it was a bait (eg GWB gets shot) is it more ethical? Probably not, but more acceptable to me at least. It's bad enough playing innocent people for fools without letting them know they're fools.

Malleus wrote:

in the end those villagers have had a bit of a laugh

If they just had a laugh in the end I don't think anyone would have a problem - does anyone think they'll really react that way though?
Of course, lashings of humble pie all round if they do Exclamation

Perhaps there is an ending to the bait that is acceptable to all? Something that will punish the lad and spare the ITPs. Answers on a postcard please..

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:10 pm

GordonBennett wrote

Quote:

If they just had a laugh in the end I don't think anyone would have a problem - does anyone think they'll really react that way though?

Maybe we've seen different videos, but I saw them, the rabble that they were laughing whilst dancing out of time not to mention smiling.

If you were carrying out a similar task I'd say you would have to be a pretty sour-faced individual not to be doing it in good humour.

In any case you could hardly say they were being tortured, and like I said if they had some more constructive use of their time they would not be doing that dance at all.

They're just hanging out with all the boys, doin the YMCA. Like the song "there's no need to feel down" an they don't look down to me.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:13 pm

@ GB Well the idea is to avoid letting them know they were baited right. True, emotional scars may be invisible but are still very real, but I guess I'm of the opinion what they don't know won't hurt them. If they never know it was all for a bait, they can't be emotionally scarred. And how emotionally scarred would they really be because they won't get to sing for GWB?!?! Haven't they heard GWB doesn't like Black people??? Kanye was very clear on that issue. Laughing

Maybe that's how they could be informed, Kanye emails them to inform them W doesn't like Black people & then they wouldn't even want to sing for GWB. At any rate, I think they could manage to pick up the pieces & go on living if, well when, the singing gig doesn't work out.

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

Quote:

They're just hanging out with all the boys, doin the YMCA.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:16 pm

@red That is really the gist of the argument. the question you have to ask is whether the 3rd parties would have performed the task if it wasn't for the baiter? Would they, in their day to day living/working/existing have performed this activity if the baiter had not been involved.

If you say no, then the baiter does have some kind of involvement in the scamming of individuals. Just because the baiter personally didn't approach the ITP themselves doesn't mean that they can remove themselves from the responsibility of the actions of the scammer.
Refer to my post pages back regarding the case in NZ were the guys motivating another man to commit armed robberies we held responsible for the murders that occurred. they didn't commit the offence, nor did they suggest that he committed the murders, but they influenced him to proceed in a course of action which resulted in them occurring.

@fife I agree, in principle, that if you do something that the people actually enjoy then it may not be as big an issue. But, what if you lead ITP to believe that they are going to receive something, or obtain some kind of benefit which they would never normally get, then take it away from them after leading them on and making them do a whole lot of things first for your own amusement? What is the difference between that, and someone leading and someone making a person believe that they are going to get money as long as the jump through a whole load of hoops, but then never really supply the intended prize at the end. The only difference is the scale of the promise and how it relates to your personal values.

If you value money, then losing money when you are an ITP is going to hurt. If you value your dignity,then taking away your dignity as an ITp is going to hurt. If you have hopes, dreams and ambitions and as a ITP you have them taken away it is going to hurt.

The problem people have is that they think money or physical well being is the only thing at stake, and if a baiter doesn't impact on that for an ITP then who cares. Unfortunately life is not like that, and until you can get your head around the fact that money is not necessarily the be all and end all to every individual in the world, you will probably never be able to grasp that harm to an ITP can take a wide variety of forms.

To use another nationality as an example, take the japanese, who have an extremely strong sense of honour. A lot of them would rather lose Yen that their sense of honour and the respect people in their community may bestow upon them.

@Malleus Again we seem to be focusing on an individual event. Right now they are may look like they are having fun and are happy. Do you think that they will be smiling so much when they find out that their dreams of going to the US for a music event were all part of a scam. Sure the scammer was the one who approached him, but why did he do it? Was it his idea in the first place?

On a general note, you have to remember that just because someone is happy now, you have to attempt to foresee the ultimate impact of your actions. A person being told that they have won the lottery would be happy at first too, but after they have been ripped off for large sums of money I can't see them being quite so happy.

EDIT: Looks like GB kind of summed it up before me. Damn these novellas I keep on writing.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:19 pm

@Malleus - I know they're having fun now.. it's later that grates for me.

@the fife - Kanye? (sorry, I have a feeling I'm being slow here Embarassed

)

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:20 pm

thefife wrote:

I think they could manage to pick up the pieces & go on living if, well when, the singing gig doesn't work out.

i think that people could pick up the pieces and continue living after they have been scammed of a small fortune. Doesn't make it right though does it.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:31 pm

Just to get it off the VP bait (good title change, whoever did it) - here are two other questions I have before I hit the hay (it's 2.30am)

1) M0s3s (of Mr Cucumber fame) is an aspiring writer and has put on a website that he has a MS with a UK publisher - probably crap, but for the sake of argument, say it's true. Is it ok to call the publisher and show them what he does - ie is it ok to go way outside a bait/scamming and crap on all aspects of his life?

2)

Quote:

So I will try to persuade M0ses to do some real 419 for BH so that at least he deserves the things we do to him

Ethical or entrapment? Discuss.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:32 pm

Honour amongst thieves perhaps?

This is not like losing a parent and it does not resemble any severe trauma psychological or otherwise.

Those people are as red pointed out accomplices, probably anyway. Even if they're not, even if they are hapless victims the chances are that they know the scammer and can either pressure him for payment, or never trust him again. If they are true accomplices then they know the chances of getting their money are slim.

Do these people look honourable? I think not. If honour was of value to this undisciplined rabble they would be looking for or carrying out legitimate work or they would not lower themselves by doing the YMCA.

So we have seen that no significant psychological trauma occurs during or after the dance video is filmed.

There is clearly no physical trauma.

There is no nock-on effect, they clearly don't have legitimate occupations or the inclination to procure legitimate employment.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:34 pm

@ Foss Even if it's not something they wouldn't normally be doing, well at least they got to experience something new, that has value. If they wanted to be doing their usual boring crap then they wouldn't sign up.

Second, the baiter isn't leading TPs to believe anything. The baiter makes no promises to TPs whatsoever. The person responsible to the TPs is the lad. The baiter is leading the lad period. What the lad does with that is the lad's choice, he has free will after all. What TPs decide based on the lad's information is their own business. As long as it isn't something that could endanger the TP's life or limbs or even his wallet, well frankly who cares? If the result is the TP's ego is a little bruised or their feelings a little hurt well the TP should get over it. It's a cold cruel world out there & they better learn how to cope with the fact that people will not be taking his ego or feelings into consideration every step of the way. Everone makes their own decisions and are responsible for those decisions, the rewards AND the consequences. I think most baiters could live w/ a TP's feelings being hurt, I know I could. Sometimes shit just doesn't work out, the TP might think this is one of those times.

GordonBennett wrote:

@the fife - Kanye? (sorry, I have a feeling I'm being slow here Embarassed

)

NP. Kanye West. He's a rapper. After the Katrina Hurricane there was a star studded televised fund raiser to help the victims & was hosted by Mike Myers & Kanye West & others. When it was Kanye's turn to read the teleprompter he launched into this speech which started "George Bush doesn't like Black people" and went in that same vein until they finally picked their jaws up off the floor & cut to another celeb. Laughing

Ahhh the look on Mike Myers face still makes me LMAO!

I tried to get a link for you but they've taken it away Evil or Very Mad

What kind of frickin facist state are we living in when you can't say the prez doesn't like black people & they remove all traces of it from the internet?!?! Evil or Very Mad

I'll look into it some more later to see if I can find a video clip for you.

EDIT: Here we go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDUIc1c5RiM
I say just have Kanye send that to the Villagers and they will make the decision not to sing for GWB of their own accord. Laughing

Foss wrote:

i think that people could pick up the pieces and continue living after they have been scammed of a small fortune. Doesn't make it right though does it.

See again, you're comparing apples to oranges. TP's hurt feelings caused by a lad vs. Victim's loss of tens of thousands to a lad...the only common denominator is the lad. It's like trying to debate Buying a Benz vs. Wearing a raincoat.

Mod edit: Consolidated all three. TS.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:52 pm

@malleus

You have basically taken the they are guilty until proven innocent approach haven't you? If you were in a jury in court in your own country would you convict the person without haven't seen any evidence, just because he is standing in the dock? I'm sorry, but that is insane. Just because a person knows a scammer doesn't make them guilty.

And to take it back to the example yet again (unfortunately, since we are trying to move away from it) how do you know that they have nothing else to do. Last time I looked a lot of people go to church on Sundays, which is in the weekend. Are you suggesting that because they all go to church on Sundays that they don't have anything else to do?

This isn't meant to be directly related to the bait. I'm just trying to point out that you cannot use a fact that you have pretty much conjured in your head without any particular evidence to support it, as a basis for doing harm to an ITP. I seriously cannot believe that people honestly attempt to justify this by saying that they must be guilty by association. Its absolutely ludicrous.

@fife

The problem that I am having is explaining extended responsibility to you. Just because a person does not directly contact somebody, if they are aware that their actions are misleading an TP and do nothing to prevent it, they too can be held culpable.

And, if we take the path that the baiter isn't responsible, if you do just let the lad mislead the ITP and watch on, isn't that just letting a lad scam someone else. Isn't the whole point of baiting to prevent lads from scamming other people as much as possible. Or, are you suggesting that an ITP from Nigeria is less worthwhile than one from say the US or the UK? Because from my understanding that is where you seem to be coming from.

To use another analogy, if you saw a child face down in a puddle drowning and you didn't save it, would you not feel slightly responsible for its death. You were there, you were watching, you could have stopped it, but you chose not to. Sure this isn't a dying child, but its the whole concept which I am trying to let you get your head around.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:56 pm

thefife wrote:

See again, you're comparing apples to oranges. TP's hurt feelings caused by a lad vs. Victim's loss of tens of thousands to a lad...the only common denominator is the lad. It's like trying to debate Buying a Benz vs. Wearing a raincoat.

As i made note in another post, that is based upon your personal values and beliefs, and not another persons. If someone values their integrity more than cash, then the seriousness of the situation may be completely reversed.

And, you are only using one situation, whereas I am trying to look at this from a general sense. You are suggesting that we draw a line somewhere, with one thing being okay, and another not. If you cannot draw a line, then you need to either allow everything, or nothing. Unless of course you can make a giant sliding scale on it with every possible situation on it of course.

As an aside, to put it in terms you are suggesting. If I had been scammed of �1,000 pounds, it wouldn't mean a lot to me. I'd be pissed off, but it is no big thing. If I had been scammed of �10,000 pounds I'd be a lot more pissed off. �100,000 and I'd be mightily pissed.

Now, if a lad scammed me for �10, are you suggesting it is okay, because it is only �10 and not that important?

And as for that Kayne West thing, OMG, I can't believe he did that, but it is so brilliant, and so true.

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

GordonBennett wrote:

For myself I see the problem being when the truth is revealed. You don't have to suffer physical pain to feel pain.

Here's a wrinkle - if the bait is ended in such a way that the ITPs don't realise it was a bait (eg GWB gets shot) is it more ethical? Probably not, but more acceptable to me at least. It's bad enough playing innocent people for fools without letting them know they're fools.

Perhaps there is an ending to the bait that is acceptable to all? Something that will punish the lad and spare the ITPs. Answers on a postcard please..

Gordon, I have already posted the ending to my bait, and the choir members will know nothing about the lad being baited, if people had read through the whole bait, they will see certain posts where I wrote emails to the lad mentioning quite a bit about 419 fraud.

I told him how much I despise 419ers who scam US citizens, and that we have CIA/FBI agents working undercover in Nigeria tracking 419ers, I said I get 419 dossiers on my desk every day naming scammers and giving their personal details, also mentioned how the head of the EFCC, Nuhu Ribadu, is a close personal friend of mine, and when I pass details to him showing a scammers scammed a US citizen, he has the scammers arrested in the middle of the night by snatch squads whilst they are sleeping, I stated that some have been held on remand for 5 years before their trials come up, those emails mentioning 419ers were sent to the lad to put thoughts and a little fear in to his head about scammers being caught by US undercover operatives, and maybe, just maybe, the operatives might know of him, and also to lay the foundations for the end of the bait.

So, what happens at the end? Well, GWB will receive his usual daily dossier on his desk detailing active scammers under observation, obviously, the lads name will be on the list of scammers Very Happy

, which is not going to please GWB, he doesn't like people making him look like a fool (he's good enough at doing that himself Laughing

), especially when that person is a 419 type that he despises so much, so, GWB emails the lad telling him name has cropped up in a dossier, now the lad has a big problem Twisted Evil

.

He will of course deny any involvement in scamming, but I can give him certain details, that will prove to him that I know exactly who he has scammed before, which he will not be able to deny, at which point, I will tell him I am think it is only fair that I email every member of his choir (that is why I asked for all their email details early in the bait), to tell them that their dream of going to the US has been ruined by a well known 419er in their midst, that should hopefully make him panic Very Happy

, so to prove to me that he is a changed man worthy of another chance, I might ask him to do some undercover work for me at that point, I have some ideas for that, I wont mention those yet, though, but no matter what he does, the whole choir will be emailed by GWB and told their dreams are shattered because of the lad being a known scammer, they might be a little pissed off about that, maybe they will bury laddy in a deep hole Twisted Evil

At which point, it will be................

@ Gordon, by the way, this lad is not a noob at scamming, and he is very successful!

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

I keep hearing TSnerds "If you're uncomfortable with it, don't do it" echoing in my head.

Baiters aren't targeting third parties, they are simply creating imaginitive and ambitious baits where the mugu needs helpers. Guessing or predicting their "emotional distress" after the outcome seems a ridiculous endeavor. If the mugu hurts someone in the process, it is on him.

What about if you have a male scammer posing as a female and you ask for a silly/humiliating trophy picture. Surely if you get it, some third party (female) was involved.

Boil this all down to what would be the only way to prevent ANY innocent people from being involved and what you have left is: Only do baits that involve the one person you're actively baiting. Don't even ask for pictures because an innocent person might be holding the camera. To me, that would be unacceptable. I enjoy seeing examples of the work of masters here. The creativity and cleverness astounds me.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:08 pm

I�ve read dozens of baits where ITPs get recruited by mugus to help carry out tasks. Art baits, twat baits, village people, etc. Even baits where someone has to hold a camera to take pictures of lads doing stupid things could violate an overly narrow definition of ITP involvement.

Getting these guys in trouble with their community and peers is one of the few effective ways they can be reached. Forbid any ITP involvement of any kind, and what is left? For me, the ethical line in the sand depends on material harm. And even then, it�s a question of degree.

For many, baiting is on thin ethical ice no matter how it is framed. If I felt that way, I wouldn�t be here.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:11 pm

OK I'm gong to attempt to clear this up. Cough, ahem. That got it. Very Happy

Oh, and I am referring to this individual bait, not ethics in general. This thread is about the Village People bait.

I'm saying that they are either know that the guy is a scammer which would make them guilty.

Or...

They have nothing better to do.

If they had paid employment they would prioritise that surely?

There is no evidence that the participants did this during work hours anyway. If it was me I'd go to work and use my influence to suggest that rehearsals were in the evening for instance. You cannot take as a fact that these people are being taken away from something more constructive, just as I cannot presume their guilt as a fact.

Faith is something completely different, churchgoers on a Sunday have nothing better to do. That is religious faith, they prioritise worship, their souls depend on it apparently.
Your Church argument doesn't work for me. You're not suggesting that these people actually worship the scammer are you? Or are you saying that they worship the Village People?

These people are not being hurt, and I believe it is a truly hysterical argument to suggest otherwise.

You can't lump every possible hypothetical scenario into this specific bait, we clearly all have a moral compass and we shift around contantly in any given situaltion to ensure we are always facing the correct way. The village people bait is not comparable to letting a baby drown in a puddle.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:40 pm

Oh, this is going to be painful...

Malleus wrote:

They have nothing better to do.

If they had paid employment they would prioritise that surely?.

can't argue with you there. However, you are saying that they have nothing better to do. Maybe, singing in their choir is something that they do in their spare time for enjoyment. Can you show me any evidence to suggest that they were doing this instead of working. Or, are you just jumping to the conclusion that these people spend their lives singing in a choir.

Quote:

You cannot take as a fact that these people are being taken away from something more constructive, just as I cannot presume their guilt as a fact.

I've never said that they were being taken away from something more constructive - you did. If this is something that they do in their leisure time, who are you to judge them if they are not scammers? Are all people who are in choirs, or even maybe bands, people with nothing to do? Some people actually do these things because they enjoy them I hear.

Quote:

Your Church argument doesn't work for me. You're not suggesting that these people actually worship the scammer are you? Or are you saying that they worship the Village People?

It was an analogy. I was trying to show that just because people go somewhere and congregate to do something doesn't mean that they have nothing to do. I was only using the church as an example because you apeear to be obsessed with the YMCA bait, and not the argument in principle.

Quote:

You can't lump every possible hypothetical scenario into this specific bait, we clearly all have a moral compass and we shift around contantly in any given situaltion to ensure we are always facing the correct way. The village people bait is not comparable to letting a baby drown in a puddle.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!! I'm sorry, but how many times have I tried to explain that I am arguing in principle, and not in terms of a particular bait. Seriously, I'm pretty sure that I have said it numerous times now. Admitedly the baby thing is a bit extreme, but it is a hypothetical situation attempting to show that you cannot just distance yourself and negate responsibilty because you were not the primary figure involved.

Can someone else out there from either side say whether you can understand how I use an analogy to explain an argument, or whether it is just a pointless exercise. I seriously didn't think it was a different concept to grasp. Maybe I have to make things more simple.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:44 pm

A thought I have here is that I feel best about the baits where there is no doubt that the lad himself (the one who actually sent me the scam letter, not the recipient of an ASEM) is attempting to do something illegal. If it's clear to anyone reading that Mr. Mugu is trying to fleece an old lady of her life savings and has to jump through hoops to get that $$ (and of course fails in the end) I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's clear that they are being baited and it seems as though we're playing by their rules and following their script. Make sense?
However, when they've been promised money for doing something they believe is legitimate, even if it's stupid, then it's been taken out of the realm of a bait and has become a scam in it's own right. There's always the chance that some of the less successful (stupider) lads would rather make $$ copying pages of a book than scamming, especially since the really successful scammers probably wouldn't fall for some of our tricks.

Finally, as an amateur musician I know how hard it is to rehearse for a gig, and it would really be a bummer to be let down. The rehearsing they have done for the VP scam goes way beyond just singing with your buddies. Probably lots of the singers' families are seeing this trip to the USA as a way out of what might be a pretty unpleasant life. They must have visions of Ladysmith Black Mambazo dancing in their heads. I do feel sorry for them and their families, even if they are let down gently and blame the mugu in the end.

And now back to work!

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:46 pm

yawn... is this debate still going on? Sort of beating a dead horse here, aren't we?

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

Why actually bait when you can endlessly and circularly debate the concept?

On a totally unrelated note, here's a good article on internet trolls.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:51 pm

luckey wrote:

I�ve read dozens of baits where ITPs get recruited by mugus to help carry out tasks. Art baits, twat baits, village people, etc. Even baits where someone has to hold a camera to take pictures of lads doing stupid things could violate an overly narrow definition of ITP involvement.

I agree, and I don't think the narrow view is really the one to take. I think the line is overstepped when a baiter, through a intermediary such as a scammer, is in fact scamming ITPs. The point when because of a baiters requests, an ITP is being led to believe that they'll receive something which they will never get, but have been implied by the baiter that they will definitely be getting, at that point the baiter has overstepped the mark.

If an ITP is a person doing their daily job, or is the person on the end of a camera simply taking the picture, the baiter is not really scamming them, and has no knowledge that the person is being scammed in anyway. However, when they suggest to a lad, or they knowingly watch a lad, effectively scamming an ITP then surely that is going to far. The role of the baiter in the very first instance is to prevent people from being scammed as much as possible, not go along with it.

Quote:

Getting these guys in trouble with their community and peers is one of the few effective ways they can be reached.

I agree. But I guess there are ways of doing it without fooling other ITPs.

Quote:

For me, the ethical line in the sand depends on material harm. And even then, it�s a question of degree.

And that is the question. My argument is who is to define material. Harm requires a values based analysis, and you need to take into account the values of the ITP, not the values of the baiter when making this judgment. If you cannot effectively do it, then you should exclude the ITP.

Quote:

For many, baiting is on thin ethical ice no matter how it is framed. If I felt that way, I wouldn�t be here.

Couldn't agree more. the very nature of baiting requires us to mislead and deceive. The only issue is whether you do this to the scammer only, or to his collective community group. For me, the former is fine, the latter in unacceptable. If they didn't attempt to do something to you, or someone else, then how can you justify doing something to them?

Great arguments by the way. I enjoyed that.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:55 pm

Mmmm, Pizza.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:59 pm

JMRazor wrote:

Why actually bait when you can endlessly and circularly debate the concept?

On a totally unrelated note, here's a good article on internet trolls.

gotta do something to kill the time while I wait to hear back from them.

You may think I'm a troll, and you are perfectly entitled to, but if nobody questioned anyone elses actions then how would we ever be held accountable for what we do. that being said, you haven't seen me jump into every thread and attempt to rip into everyone, it has all been contained in this one.

But seriously though, I am seriously trying to make this a debate about the ethics in a general sense. If you really have nothing worthwhile to contribute, and just want to complain that you don't enjoy the concept of a debate or that you think it is just going in circles without having any conclusion then why bother reading and posting worthless crap? the biggest problem with an ethical argument is that there is so much grey area, which will always result in a circular argument.

I'd like to say that if you don't like it don't read it, but that'd be wrong. I think that if you don't like what someone says, then attempt to refute it. If you feel unwilling or unable to then STFU and just don't say anything at all.

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

I'm not going to be lured into a side debate with you. You showed up on Eater apparently with the sole intent of engaging in a debate. Let it go -- try some real baiting. We've heard every possible angle by now -- take it to PM -- there is nothing new to hear at this point and you've proven your sole goal is to get in the last word each and every time.

Stop acting tough with your "STFU" -- it's childish. I promise not to read any follow-ups to this so if you want to say anything further to me please use the PM function.

419Eater is my life Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 441

Must agree with YW. YAWN.

Seems that some people here are getting really, really emotionally involved in defending a stupid position to the bone.

Discussing a point "in general" instead of specifically adds to the boredom of abstraction that is rather stubbornly applied here.

"How stubborn can a (new) forum member get"? Didn't we have a thread like this just recently?

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