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: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:13 am

Here is the very simplified version.

If you can actually get your lad to donate to a charity willingly to help the orphans, then knock your socks off. There has been a lot of different opinions and advice given here for people to make up their own minds on the subject. If you don't feel comfortable doing something, don't do it.

Just hope he doesn't feel like getting his money back. Not that there isn't much he can do about it.

I hope that clears that up.

Doctor X, you're starting to remind me of that crazy cat throwing lady from the Simpson's. (j/k)

Laughing

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:17 am

So willingly means that he knows that he's donating the money to charity and not calling you instead?

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:29 am

You guys are breaking me. Laughing

Would you like me to just say 'yes'? I won't. I can't decide forum policy on the greater grey area of baiting. If you would like a definitive green light, or a eater mod and admin frowning on this particular subject, I will open the discussion in the mod lounge. I'm fairly sure we'll all end up saying, 'I thought it was clear enough'.

All I'm saying is people can make up their own minds. We can't do it for you.

Very Happy

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:35 am

Sorry NN if it seems like I'm bashing you over the head again and again on this. I think I'm actually hoping for a few other mods or users to chip in with their ideas on this.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:47 am

HAHA! They're reading this mate. Don't worry about that. I think the reason they haven't said anything is because I may be handling it without any further input.

Plus I have a lot more patience. You may not like some of their responses. Wink

419Eater is my life Joined: 11 Jun 2005 Posts: 344

my two cents - it crosses the line regarding innocent third parties. If it's monies sent through the post, bank wire, etc, the lad most likely will send a fake check, use a stolen credit card or stolen banking info, or get a victim to send the money. If one of those 900 numbers, from my understanding those do not work outside of the calling area theyre set up in (one in uk cant be called from overseas, one for us cant be called from outside us, etc), which makes it relatively moot.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:02 am

^^ A lot of the lads I am baiting at the moment live in the UK so I was proposing to use the 900 numbers on them.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:02 am

What if "419eater" set up a premium rate phone number that was freely passed out to laddie boys....

And the money made from that premium rate phone line was then donated to charity.... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:03 am

^^ Hmmm... when you put it that way what you're proposing seems more like cash-baiting. Perhaps it's not hugely different to my idea, although I feel less comfortable about the money going through 419eater. But then I wonder how my idea's different to making them spend money in other ways.

Perhaps get our lads to call a super expensive phone sex line?

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

Nurse Nasty wrote:

Doctor X, you're starting to remind me of that crazy cat throwing lady from the Simpson's. (j/k)

That . . . is . . . the nicest . . . thing . . . anyone has ever . . . written about me!

*sniff!*

Anyways, folks the Mods/Admins and Board have to look at the bigger picture. First, as satisfying as the idea is, does anyone think they will get a lad to donate a significant amount of money?

Second, as threads on articles written about baiters demonstrate, there are critics--aka "Wetpanted Surrender Monkeys"--who say that baiting "is the same" as scamming. Obviously it is not! However, introduce this to it, and it gets very close. The excuses for it--"we are donating the $$ to a charity/they are donating it themselves"--ring just a little too close to the excuses scammers make.

Third, there are legal problems. Not likely legal organizations will go after individual baiters if they over-step a law a wee bit. A board is another thing entirely. They really do not need the headache or the risk.

Fourth, what is the point? Nice if one could bankrupt a lad--make him repent--or even be able to make his computer explode or something. It is not going to happen. ALL one can do is make them waste time, some money, and make them paranoid. This is why I, personally, think the is one of the best ideas of this site. The less time they can spend scamming, the less harm to victims. One other point is education of victims. People can come here and laugh their literal asses off. You can send a friend or family member who is a victim and show them whatever scam they are in has already been done. Make this a place where people get money out of scammers, and that rather changes things.

Fifth, consider this: there are guys who get scammers to travel on safaris, get tattooed. When I first [Trolled.--Ed.] came here it was during one of the TWAT festivals--getting lads to build pyramids! How can a few hundred $$$--which is about the best you will get from a Lad--compare to that?!

Sixth, I do not throw cats.

Much.

--J.D.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:51 am

Some good points there Dr X and I don't think that I would follow through with this any more because of what you and NN have brought up. I think it's interesting to explore what the boundaries of cash-baiting are and are not. Perhaps a few of the other things we do may also be construed as cash baiting, though as has been said many times before the boundaries are incredibly blurry - like everything else in life. Very Happy

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:07 am

yrubraj wrote:

I think it's interesting to explore what the boundaries of cash-baiting are and are not.

Just to clear this statement up for anyone joining this discussion. The rules on cash-baiting are very much set in stone yrubraj. As stated here.

*** IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT CASH BAITING ***

We've appeared to have blurred the original issue, which I think has been answered. I don't really want this to become a discussion on 'how to circumvent the cash baiting rule', because we won't.

As it stands, this subject (in it's varying forms) has been raised often. There is nothing wrong with reiterating the facts for newer members who may be confused on the subject, or not even be aware of it.

I would really hate to lock it and ask we move on to the newest moral dilemma.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:34 pm

If a lad gets on a bus that takes him 150 miles and then realizes that his own private palace (that we assured him was going to be at the end of the line) isn't there, doesn't that - by this logic - violate the ITP rule by involving an innocent bus driver?

As I have understood it, the ITP rule has a lot to do with the word innocent. Keeping those third-party-people AS third parties. They still exist, but they remain blissfully ignorant. A charity line that talks to a lad and ends up following protocol by charging him to be on the line, in my mind, remains innocent don't they?

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

^^^^^Bus driver was going there anyways, and he was paid his fare.

Thine analogy fails.

--J.D.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:44 pm

I suppose.

But the charity operator was going to be answering phone calls anyway, weren't they? It's not like we're inconveniencing the charity phone operators. They get paid their fare too.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:45 pm

I'm one of the ones that kept going back to the same point yesterday Embarassed

Now that I've read the rest of the replies since then, I think I've had a change of heart. The difference between the charity line or, say, the bus example above - is that the lad knows he's getting on a bus to go somewhere and it would be in no way, shape, or form the busdriver's fault if the lad tried to say that he shouldn't have to pay for the bus trip because the prize wasn't at the end. The charity line, on the other hand, is different because the lad *thinks* he is calling someone else entirely - and the charity could potentially be accused of "tricking" the lad into calling them - when in reality they didn't know it was a lad at all.

That's how it violates ITP in my opinion.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:45 pm

Hi Peanut. You may have missed all the posts and comments in this thread, so here is a highlight.

The Third Party wrote:

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.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:55 pm

OK, I'll buy that. (via WU transfer...?)

I suppose the distinction lies in WHO you set up the third-parties to be. You tell the lad the bus driver is actually a secret agent who is going to be driving you to a special drop box, you violate the ITP because the bus driver isn't playing.

I do see the ultimate point that started this though. If we can get a lad to waste $90.00 shipping something random to us....it seems a shame we can't get them to waste the same amount of money - but let it go to someone other than the people at DHL or FedEx.

The greatest thing would be if DHL or FedEx would be involved in a program that would donate half the shipping cost to a charity when the sender puts a certain code in the shipping or something like that.

Also - thanks for the summary NN. I read them, but I liked the clarification regarding "effects". Third-parties remain innocent if their reality as hotel concierge, bus driver, or whomever also exists in the world we create (keeping them as a bus driver, concierge, or whomever). You violate the ITP when you cast these innocents as something they are not.

Sound right?

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:00 pm

Peanut wrote:

OK, I'll buy that. (via WU transfer...?)

Of course. I shall PM you the MTCN. You will need to go to Amsterdam to pick it up.

Peanut wrote:

...it seems a shame we can't get them to waste the same amount of money - but let it go to someone other than the people at DHL or FedEx.

I know. As frustrating as it is...

Peanut wrote:

Sound right?

Yes.

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:31 pm

Nurse Nasty wrote:

I would really hate to lock it and ask we move on to the newest moral dilemma.

If you need someone to start a "Should I ask lad 1 to fire bomb lad 2's house?" thread to divert attention from here while you tidy up, just tell me when Cool

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:31 pm

@Peanut: my original idea didn't actually involve charity phone operators at all, but rather *900 numbers where the donation would be automatically paid from the lad's phone bill. I'm not quite sure how this situation works, but I suspect the phone company automatically pays the charity "most" of the amount and then recoups it from the phone billpayer (which in this case is the lad).

If (and it's a really big if, as at the moment I'm not feeling comfortable enough to do it) I was to do such a thing I would just tell my lad that my office phone number is *900 xxxxxx and they should give me a call on it. The problem comes if they recognise that as a pay number, which they most likely would, and I have to say to them "oh yeah it is, but it's only like 2c a minute..." which wouldn't be true and therefore potentially runs into legal issues.

If the lad immediately accepted that was my number and called it, only to find out that he'd automatically made a donation of $20 (or 20 pounds or whatever, depending on his country), then the legal argument seems to come to to whether or not he pays his phone bill which is an issue between the telecommunications company and the lad. However, the last thing I would want is for the lad to convince the telecommunications company that they should try to get the money back from the charity... which may happen (I really don't know how such things work).

Perhaps we could get the lads to call phone sex lines instead?

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:34 pm

yrubraj wrote:

Perhaps we could get the lads to call phone sex lines instead?

Ask them to do something they might enjoy? Have you gone completely mad?

Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:35 pm

Gay male phone sex lines perhaps? Wink