Bait For Charity

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: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:38 pm

I am not sure what is the case in other countries, but I know that here in New Zealand there are some charities and organisations (such as the SPCA) that have 0900 (similar to 1900 in the USA I think) phone lines that make an automatic donation of $20 or $25 when they are called, no matter how long the person stays on the line for.

What better way to support a charity than for you to get your lad to give them a call and "kindly donate" money to help your favourite charity? However, in order to pull this off I think I need a bit of help and a few ideas on whether similar stuff exists in the UK so I can get my London lads to give them a call, or in other countries. 1900 and 0900 number don't work outside the country in which they have been called, so local numbers would be necessary I would think. Furthermore, ways in which we can convince the lads to call these numbers would potentially be tricky, especially if the lads recognised them as pay numbers - perhaps we'd need to convince them to call a number for MTCN information and while it will cost them a bit, the rates are really low.

I thought about putting this in the help section, but I would rather this thread is a general discussion about this way of baiting than simply a "can you help me do this" kind of thing. If I (and others) can pull this off then surely it will be a most awesome achievement. Waste your lad's time and money AND help a deserving cause all in one go!

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:11 am

If you can provide some numbers I'd be more than happy to direct them there.

Are you sure you can't call a 0900 from overseas?

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am

Something like this is borderline cash baiting, which we do not condone for legal reasons. ie. It's illegal.

It's a little like trying to win the argument that, even though you would be putting the money to a good cause it really doesn't matter where the money comes from. It's not a debate here. We don't allow the discussion, or condone the method of baiting scammers for cash.

Even if you could convince your lad to call this number and willingly follow the prompts to confirm he/she wishes to spend the money to collect the MTCN, the charity that collects the money then becomes a target for the scammer. He would claim he was tricked into sending that money to the charity. I have no idea what the outcome would be, but it appears to be a unnecessary hassle.

Just have your lad spend his $20.00 on making a costume from the feathers of a chicken and make his run down the main road of town. He could be supporting your 'Why did the chicken cross the road?' charity. With this pictorial evidence you can promise the lad to make a donation to this worthy cause in his name. Then and only then would you consider him legit, and worthy of your time.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:56 am

Geez, Nasty... is that really cash baiting? I mean, getting the lad to spend their money on long-distance could be considered as the same thing in a really far-flung way. And let's not forget having them buy a bus ticket to some other country.

Not trying to challenge the rules here, but I thought as long as WE didn't get the proceeds it didn't count as a cash bait. Confounding, confusing, and otherwise breaking our lads is our goal, after all.

Then again, I've been wrong before. More than once in fact.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:03 am

I was kind of thinking the same thing, hence posting it on here for a bit of clarification. I can understand that we wouldn't want to place the charity at risk by doing this, but at the same time it does seem similar to getting the lad to waste their money on something else, at least this time their money's going to a good cause.

I'm open for correction on this, and I do see how it could be construed as cash-baiting.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:25 am

I was thinking more along the lines of when a mugu asks you for a phone number and you don't care about the outcome, you give him that number.

That is surely not cash baiting. You're not misrepresenting anything, it's his choice to call the number. He'll find out soon enough what it's all about.

If that's border-line cash baiting then so is anytime you ask the lad to call an international number. SOMEONE is going to make money off the false pretense that you will help the lad.

Again, very similar to getting the lad to send something via courier and him having to incur the costs. If you say it was "damaged" on the way, and he submits a complaint to the courier company, you've cash baited him? Because I've read on here many times that that is NOT considered cash baiting.

I also, like LJ, am not trying to challenge the rules, but cash baiting and having a lad call an expensive phone line (as long as you don't say it is in an effort to receive money) is a long bow to draw in my opinion.

Then again, I'm pretty noob... so could be well wrong from the scambaiting ethical side of things. But legally, absolutely nothing in this country that would make that illegal (again, as long as you don't use that "MTCN" modality).

That's like saying if you give someone at a nightclub the number to a phone sex line instead of your own number because they are a creep you could be sued for the money they spent. Ummm no, as long as you don't misrepresent anything. Just simply say "call this number"... don't say why.

EDIT: As stated below, the only consideration I can see, as the OP raised, is the ITP rule.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:28 am

This has come up before. IIRC, here are the conclusions:
First off, those numbers are probably unreachable by the throw away prepaid cells the lads use anyway.

Secondly, even if a mugu was to use a landline, it would certainly violate the third party rule to involve a charity in one's bait. Lads can get quite bitchy when they lose money, and tend to throw emailesque temper tantrums. Funny when they threaten to sue or sic the law on a baiter, waste of time for an innocent party if they pull the same crap on a charity.

JMHO

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:37 am

The ITP Rule... Thanks Slayer and Red!

Yep, good thing I threw in the "been wrong before" disclaimer. Embarassed

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to withdraw my previous statement and would ask the court for a short recess while I leave the building quietly. No further questions your honour. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

Seriously: Good point, well noted. The Innocent Third Party rule might not be a legal thing, but it's one of the big Thou-Shalt-Not's around here with good reason. A legal charity does not deserve the kind of abuse and frustration that an angry lad can cause.

I won't say anything about giving away numbers for a phone-scammer though!

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:03 am

Losst Jedi wrote:

The ITP Rule...

I thought I said that? In a round-a-bout sort of fashion. Sorry if I was unclear. Smile

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:03 am

^^^ you did:

NN wrote:

He would claim he was tricked into sending that money to the charity. I have no idea what the outcome would be, but it appears to be a unnecessary hassle.

And it was clear, on second reading, to me at least Smile

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

Forgive me for having that position, but I truly don't think a mugu would bother to go after any overseas charity organisation in order to get his 25 or 50 cents back. Besides, there have never been any reports of mugus actually calling the police or any other legal authorities to support their "legitimate" claims.

As far as I understand he won't even talk to any third party, it's usually just "thank you for donating".

However, if this should truly be illegal (is it?) I understand that it shouldn't be discussed here.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:56 am

My 2p.

While it seems a good idea to have worthy causes benefit from the lads greed, in light of some of the critisism we get from the do-gooders in the press etc, we need to be seen to be as clean as possible. Therefore even the slightest risk of a charity getting targeted by disgruntled lads is not worth the risk.

I agree with the mods that this would be unacceptable and I frimly believe that we must accept their decisions. If we don't then anarchy will reign and the good that we do will be put in jeapody.

Now lets get back to the job in hand. Laughing

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:59 am

I do see where the mods are coming from regarding this. Yet I still think it's worthy to have a good healthy debate about topics such as this. At first glance it seems like a really good idea ethically, although when you think about it a little more I agree that there are third party issues. As I've said on other threads the more we discuss borderline issues such as this one the better outcomes we're going to have and the stronger ethical guidelines we'll be able to establish when it comes to baiting.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:41 am

There is nothing wrong with debate, and this is only my opinion. I just know a lad wouldn't willingly donate to any charity, unless he was scamming them. I wouldn't want a lad to find a victim in any charitable organisation who had access to funds, or even legitimate documents that could be bastardised to help legitimise his next scam.

As I said, it's borderline. I would love for my lad to give his money to a worthy cause, but he realistically spent his own personal funds on paying the hotel room I would be staying at when I arrived. Scanning and filling out documents. Wasting all his on-line time with having answer my hundreds of questions. Phone calls to my answering service. Bus and taxi fares to nearby towns. Taking pictures for my amusement. It all adds up.

I'm pretty sure the concept of 'donating' would seem a more bizarre concept than anything else.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:20 am

Just to clear up what I was talking about, in case it does make a difference, I only propose that lads would call automatic pay numbers that immediately make a donation, rather than anywhere they might talk to a person. The only clue that lad would get that something hadn't gone to plan would be when they heard "the SPCA (or whatever) thanks you for this kind donation". Having never called such a number (woe on me) there might be a "press 1 to confirm your donation" part which could mess things around.

It would be difficult for the lad to try to scam the charity in this situation, although it would be obvious to them they'd been had pretty quick, and they may think the charity's responsible and take our their frustration on them, which would obviously be something we don't want to promote.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:40 pm

Aha! I think I see what you mean.

The BBC set up a number of lines like that when they are running something similar to "Celebrity Come Dancing" or "Castaway 2007".
The idea was you rang a number but changed the last digit according to who you wanted to vote for. When you rang a recorded message says "Thank you for voting for xxxxxxxzx".
The call costs 25p and 15p is donated to the BBC Children in Need appeal.

A call to one of theose lines would achieve:

1. Waste the lads time and money
2. Gain 15p a call for charity
3. Get a vote for your favourite contestant.

And of course you might get a vote for a couple of other contestants by changing the last digit, before the lad twigs.

But! and its a big BUT!

Would that fall foul of the ITP rule?

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm

I'm a little confused. If I understand this correctly, the lad would call an automated number that would cost him money - and the money would go to a charity. And, apparently, this is cash baiting and violation of ITP. Yet, there are a half dozen threads on here where people have posted numbers for lads to call that simply cost them money. This is not cash baiting or violation of ITP ... why?

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

Taking it one step further one could argue that having the lads make hotel reservations would be cash baiting as well, because the hotel (ITP) profits from it.

Since hotel reservations seem to be ok, I would see no reason not to make a lad call an automated charity donation line.

Master Baiter Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 139

Full requote of previous post deleted. It can be seen ^^^^^

You make a very good point. However, it's far easier for the lad to claim he was tricked into paying money when it's plausible to assume it came as a surprise. When the mugu books and guarantees a hotel room, the only surprise is that you never showed up. Hotels are very clear; deposits for guaranteed reservations are non-refundable, and they hire a legal team for the express purpose of defending that part of the agreement. The last thing a mugu wants is to tangle with Accor Hotels.

Compare this to calling a number, expecting to talk to a live person or an information line and being told they just made a donation to <ITP>. Charities don't have the fine print nor the legal expertise that hotels do (certainly not the nice ladies on the hotline), and are very sympathetic by nature. The last thing YOU want is to have a charity pay back a donation plus "exchange fees" to a mugu.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:37 pm

Welcome to the grey area of baiting - There are so many what if's, and maybe's it will drive the logical brain insane. I'm not trying to set any policy here, rather I'm highlighting the potential problems of getting your lad to actually donate money.

This is a cyclic discussion. One with too many variables. The bottom line is, we (mods and admin) and not your conscience, your moral compass or your ethics police. We can't stop you from doing anything. We only offer advice and a difference of opinion based on the few possibilities of 'what if'.

I'm off to find the third party rule thingo.

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:43 pm

The grey area of baiting - always a great area for discussion. Looks like we still haven't come to any solid conclusions regarding whether this is an OK thing to do or not. I'll put in what I think might be good guidelines.

1) Never get your lad to call a charity where they'd actually end up talking to someone.

2) Make sure you feel comfortable that the charity won't be placed in a legal situation where they may have to refund any costs.

Any further guidelines are appreciated here. I understand that my original proposal may not meet the two guidelines I listed above (especially not #2).

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:56 am

I wouldn't hold high hopes on having a definite conclusion. I personally think having a lad donate his own money to a charity YOU direct him is unlikely and just doesn't sit well.

Old Coaster wrote:

It is not the role of moderators to tell people how to bait. That said, we are responsible for running this site and over the last 4 years, we have laid down rules about what is acceptable here. Our actions, advice and comments are based on them. As far as I am aware, The Innocent Third Party Rule has not been published before since it is largely a matter of common sense.

The Third Party Rule explained a few months ago.

Quote:

Baiting is a good fun and as long as you observe a few precautions pretty safe. However, in our baits, we should remember that these people are dangerous criminals and we should not expose innocent members of the public to the dangers we are so careful to avoid. For example, whilst it is acceptable to send a published photo of a celebrity and pretend that it is your character, it is better to use the photo of a known criminal who is safe in jail. Never use that of a neighbour since if the mugu or vlad tracks you down, they might get attacked. In the same way, even if you have been badly let down by someone, do not use their name and address in your baits as the consequences could be very serious.

With corporate entities, it is acceptable to send the mugu on a wild goose chase, but making law enforcement react to something we instigated is wrong. This includes sending scammers to the FBI or White House, or having them or 3rd parties call the EFCC. It would also be inadvisable to have your lad stand in an airport with the words 'IMA BOMB' on a sign. Such actions bring the entire baiting community into dis-repute.

Sending mugus to a hotel to look for you or to a WU office for a non-existant cash sum is perfectly acceptable as these institutions employ staff to deal with such queries and each bait will involve different sites so they will only happen occasionally at an individual hotel.

Whenever involving an innocent third party in your bait, please consider the effect that it will have. For example sending pizzas to his house will result in far more of a hassle for the the pizza company than for the mugu.

It is difficult to lay down strict lists of do's and don'ts and members are expected to use their common sense. If you are uncertain whether a proposed course of action is acceptable, please pm a moderator for advice.

As for guidelines and policies, we do have firm do's and don'ts. We mainly rely on members who bait here to use their common sense.

We could debate this till the cows come home, but here is the eater approved ITP rule. Take it, or leave it. I'd just suggest baiting with your heads.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:02 am

Thanks for the info NN. I totally agree with you that there will always be grey areas that require a little bit of common sense on the baiter's behalf, but that's surely one of the main points of this forums - for us to debate what is and isn't OK to do during a bait and also evolve our own guidelines for what is right and wrong.

What I propsoed would be pretty difficult to pull of, as for a start I don't know if charities in other parts of the world have similar automatic donation lines as we do here in New Zealand, while getting your lad to dial a number they know is pay-per-minute will also not be easy. Even then I'd have to be satisfied I wasn't putting the charity at risk, which would also be quite difficult.

I think the more debate we have about grey areas of the ethics of scam-baiting the better.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:20 am

As NN has quite competently pointed out (he's getting better at it folks Very Happy

), it a grey area, but not one that is without legitimate concerns. When you stop to think about it;

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

I think this and That Which May Not be Advocated [Cash Baiting--Ed.] come from the legitimate emotional desire to get back at a scammer--to hurt him materially as he hurts his victims.

This is why films are popular: we wish we could become Mad Max in a traffic jam!

So, would it NOT be "funny" and "great" for a scammer to lose $$$ and have it help the cuter orphans?

This is the same sort of thinking as believing if someone is a jerk in a bar--a "pub" for our friends in Ol' Blighty!--and you "beat them up" you get the girl and respect.

In reality . . . you end up in jail. You are sued by the jerk's family. $50,000-$100,000 in legal fees you might still have your freedom.

A lad may not go after you for the money.

A board? Shut down a board devoted to punishing scammers? THAT is a worthy target.

So, as Nurse Nasty suggests, confine the need for justice to making them dress up in feathers and run down the street. Get them tattoo'd. Send them on safaris. Whether or not the "3d" of the Third Anniversary Safari was tortured enough is immaterial to the fact he probably had--at the very least--to put his on-going scams "on hold" while "vacationing" in Singapore.

For those who read the Archives when they joined HERE, I think a Lad losing a few hundred dollars is, perhaps, humiliating, but looking at a big tattoo for the rest of their lives . . . thinking about "the one that got away?" THAT is just a "gift that keeps on giving!"

My $0.02.

--J.D.

[Edited to redact to the Textus Receptus.--Ed.]