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 11:08 pm

You will have to lend me some then Very Happy

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:15 pm

Actually - ..GWB wants the choir to perform the Monty Python fish slapping dance.. live feed to the Whitehouse.. dossier comes announcing lad is scammer.. GWB cancels on the spot.. fish-holding people vent frustration..

Come on SP, you can do it (have I just shot myself in the foot regarding ethics?) Very Happy

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

^^^^^ Don't tempt me Laughing

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:33 pm

I'd love to see them do Fork Handles.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:01 am

GordonBennett wrote:

And is JimmyJazz's avatar Iggy Pop? I gots to know Smile

It sure is.

And there endeth my involvement in this particular thread!

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:54 am

oops

Sorry Corona Sad

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:14 am

Foss wrote:

@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.

I hear what you're saying, but:

1. The example you gave about the armed robberies was a legal example, not an ethical one.

2. Would they have performed this if the baiter hadn't been involved?

No.

Are they suffering as a result of the baiter being involved?

No.

If they suffer at all it is a result of the scammer being involved, not the baiter.

You tell your lad to go and pick something up from WU and off he goes. Now when he gets there expecting his pay cheque and finds he has nothing he is wasting the time of the clerk at WU and more than likely berating the clerk for failing to find his payment.

Did the 3rd party suffer as a result of what the baiter did or as a result of what the scammer did?

Remember... the scammer is the one who initiates these activities.

The baiter simply goes along with it.

Don't confuse your personal morals with ethics in general.

Ethical consideration is about compromise and reality. In a perfect world scammers would only hurt themselves and no one else... but that's not the reality we live in and if you were to take the strict view that ITPs could not be involved even as a possibility then baiting would become near impossible.

The ITPs in the village people gig presumably know who he is. Beyond that, you could send them an email warning them who he is... but if they continue to choose to do what he wants, then so be it. They are not suffering.

If you were to lodge a writ for 'psychological damages' every time you got disappointed you'd be a poor man.

The worst that will is happen is that they are back in exactly the same place as where they started, except this time, they have something to show for it. And someone to blame. The lad.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:39 am

*sigh*

You know, scammers are actually a lot like the Nazis...

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:11 am

Gantz wrote:

*sigh*

You know, scammers are actually a lot like the Nazis...

More like the bay of pigs surely?

I mean, my lad is clearly more akin to JFK's advisers Very Happy

fair point cobber, OT duly noted...

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:22 am

I think you misunderstood red. Follow this Link to see what I meant.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:47 am

No no, i understood, it is a forum phenomenon everywhere.

I was just taking the mickey (admittedly poorly).

Completely out of line statement removed. - Lotta

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:51 am

*stays quiet*

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:01 am

@red

I've removed that ridiculous statement you made in your last post.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:05 am

Oh dear another ethics thread. Foss, SP himself said he felt sorry for the choir singers, i think we all agree on that (about the innocent ones anyway)
I am sure however that most of them know that the man is a scam artist.
The culture over there glorifies them. I bet you havn't seen the Nigerian video 'I go chop your dolla, you be the mugu, i be the master' Look at it and you will see.
Nobody was hurt, in fact the only person likely to be hurt is the scammer himself.
End of story,hell the choir may even have benefited from the extra practice.
Keep posting though Foss, discussion and debate are healthy, just in this particular instance I think it is safe to say that here most people will agree to disagree with you.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:27 am

OMG! I've not seen that vid before. I wonder if it's the nigerian version of "Gangsta" rap?

A link to that would be a great insult in a dolla chop bait. Twisted Evil

I s'pose that's been said before considering how old the vid is.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:15 am

@foss and frank - very true about their society glorifying scammers.

Really good 60 minutes piece on the scams, that i'm sure was discussed to death here, showed that in Nigeria that it someone is seen to be cool or great if they can make money out of doing nothing.

Moreover, when police come in to shut down scamming rings etc the locals riot.

Why? because they're all getting rich off it. Maybe not all directly, but in general, they're all profiting from it.

You should have seen these people, they were pelting the police vans with rocks etc and shots were fired.

these 'ITPs' know exactly what's going on.

It really begs the question... if someone unwillingly participates in a scam are they in fact ITPs at all?

THEY are the ones scamming... if your mate told you that GWB was going to shout you a visa into the US if you dance a little what would you say?!

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:54 am

This thread seems to be going adrift.

Who has got the keys?

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:53 am

@red

Didn't see the 60 minutes piece, but I'll take your word for it. To tell you the truth, I never really considered the macroeconomic effects of a scam. When they come into money, of course they have to spend it, which is most likely to be in their local communities benefiting their community as a whole. Therefore you may be right, in that the whole community would know why they have cash, would know where is came from, and is more than happy to go along with it, because at the end of the day they know that they in fact also become beneficiaries of the scam.

I never considered it from that point of view. Won't make me change my mind approach to a bait, but it was exellent food for thought.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:57 am

[quote=foss]Won't make me change my mind approach to a bait, but it was exellent food for thought.
[/quote]

Nor should it.

Your morality is probably one of the reasons you baited in the first place.

I respect your opinions and if at any stage you ever feel like I'm telling you how to bait (I barely know myself!) then please slap me hard. Very Happy

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:29 am

Foss wrote:

I never really considered the macroeconomic effects of a scam. When they come into money, of course they have to spend it, which is most likely to be in their local communities benefiting their community as a whole.

That's actually microeconomics. The money scammers spend in their local community might very well be beneficial, but the damage they have done to the economy and reputation of scamming "hot spots" like West Africa cannot even be calculated.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:38 am

^^^^ I don�t know much about economics, but thinking of it on a global scale it doesn�t look too good again: Cause what do the scammers mainly buy? Cars, cell phones and other luxury goods. And where do they come from? Of course from the US, europe and so on. So the money doesn�t really stay in Nigeria in the end.
Not to think of the damage they cause to their country because the honest businessmen have problems because of their country�s reputation. Sad

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:58 am

SlayerFaith wrote:

Foss wrote:

I never really considered the macroeconomic effects of a scam. When they come into money, of course they have to spend it, which is most likely to be in their local communities benefiting their community as a whole.

That's actually microeconomics. The money scammers spend in their local community might very well be beneficial, but the damage they have done to the economy and reputation of scamming "hot spots" like West Africa cannot even be calculated.

Ummm.... are you sure? I was under the impression that macroeconomics related to the performance of an economy as a whole whereas micro economics tends to relate with demand and supply of goods and services (the price impacts etc) and is more on how indiviuals make decisions. Though, it has been about 8 years since I studied economics in any proper detail.

I would have thought that the scammers money would represent the impacts on growth, inflation etc in the Nigerian economy. Though on a micro economic scale, the increase in money would mean that people are more willing to pay more for a limited resource, thus fueling inflation (macro effect). So I guess it is really a bit of both.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:21 am

^^^
You've just proved my point. The effects of individual scammers are microeconomic, but the cumulative effect of scamming is macroeconomic.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:40 am

Okay, I'll give you that. I was looking at it from an influx of money into an economy approach as opposed to the allocation of resources approach. It all depends on your definition of an economy, which could be a town, a region, a country.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:12 am

Please stop you two, you're hurting my brain.

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