Baiting ethics - is there a line that shouldn't be crossed?

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: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:32 am

I laughed myself silly reading about the moron who was baited into getting a "Baited by Shiver" tattoo. It started me thinking about some outrageous hoops I might try to make a lad jump thru.

One idea was to demand a photograph of the lad holding a live, poisonous snake. I realize that 419 scammers are the lowest form of human life on the planet, but it is still human life.

I'm quite new to this and don't know all the "unwritten rules". Is there some kind of baiting ethic that says we don't try to entice lads into situations where they are putting themselves in real danger of being injured or killed?

Or is it a case where if the guy is stupid enough to be baited into picking up a live poisonous snake, it's OK to let him reap the consequences of his own stupidity?

If it's left up to me, I would have no problem pursuing that and I probably wouldn't believe him anyway if he wrote and said he'd been bitten.

Still, I don't want to pursue anyting in my "newbie enthusiasm" that crosses any ethical lines among the established baiting community.

Thanks.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:41 am

As a fellow newbie, I would perhaps suggest that you embark first on just general time-wasting pursuits, as that seems to be the primary goal (aside from giving public information to prevent people from getting scammed). Infliction of other results, be it cash-baiting, tattooing, and so forth, probably gets into the ethical (and legal) questions that each person should resolve on their own, and probably only after some time and experience. My impression is that those with more experience in scam-baiting probably have a better basis to judge what risks (ethical and legal) are appropriate.

Personally, I find that it would be fantastic to really make a clown out of baiters, but on the other hand, I leave it to the really experienced people to lead the way. These experienced people are also more talented in making sure that bad mojo does not come their way. For instance, if you waste some guys time, that's one thing. But if you get a tattoo on someone, you better be sure you can't be traced. Being a newbie, I'd think it would be wiser to learn from the pros before you push the limits.

But, I'm just the newbie! Just some thoughts... Very Happy

Oh, and three other thoughts: 1. Cash-baiting discussion is pretty much off-limits--there's a FAQ on that
2. In general, anything that might harm an innocent third party should be avoided.
3. I would tend to think that causing fatal harm is wrong, even if they do steal money. I think that proportionality is something to consider. And I'm not sure how proud someone would or should be if they caused a scammer's demise. I think we all know what lenghts people will go for money, and I have zero doubt that a scammer could be baited to his/her demise.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:36 am

In a nutshell, ethics are typically a personal choice. Baiters here have different comfort levels for what they will ask a lad to do. Mine's admittedly pretty low.

We do have some pretty universally agreed-upon ethics. Again, in brief, we don't condone nor discuss trying to get lads to send you cash, otherwise known as cash-baiting, for the simple reason that it is, essentially, scamming and therefore illegal. Likewise, no discussion of other illegal activities. Such topics will promptly be locked.

We also typically agree that we do not greatly inconvenience, involve, or endanger innocent third parties. Especially no tying up of important public resources. No getting your lad to call the police station or the fire department asking for your funny baiting name. No ladbombing the annoying neighbor by asking the lads to email him or phone him at odd hours, as this constitutes harrassment, and you could, frankly, find yourself in trouble if it gets traced back to you. No posing as the owner of a local tavern and telling the lad to meet you at work.

As an extension of the "no innocent third party" rules, keep in mind that your trophy requests may involve possible consequences to innocents. Here's where it gets grayer. You can't absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, know for a fact that the person in the photo you request is the scammer. Scammers are criminals, and frankly, some of them are violent. For an idea of what some of these people are capable of, research the case of George Makronalli, a victim who met his scammers face to face.

Most scammers are lazy and cowards. They aren't typically going to do something ridiculously painful or dangerous themselves if they can get out of it. They're more likely to pay someone else to do it or strongarm someone into it, if they have the means and opportunity. Grant you, a lot of them don't have the money or the muscle to do such a thing, but it's hard to tell which is which just from email exchanges. Even a low level catcher might belong to a large gang with a lot of local influence. Some police are on the local gang "payroll" and would turn a blind eye for a little money.

Here's where your personal ethics and what you're willing to risk come into play. That's one reason why I don't request dangerous or incredibly humiliating trophies, personally. (Actually, I pretty well stay away from trophy requests period, as a straight baiter... but even when I ask for trophies, they're very tame. I figure no permanent harm done even if someone gets scared into holding a silly sign for a picture. No one's going to resist to their dying breath or be scarred for life because I ask them to hold up a sign saying "Hi, Trina.")

I would just rather not worry about the idea of some greedy dink of a scammer forcing his wife/daughter/son to pose nude because I asked for it, or yanking some poor bloke off the street and intimidating him into holding a poisonous snake for a photo, or anything else that might cause lasting harm. I've encountered several scammers who were scamming as women, but who were actually men, who seem to respect and value their dogs more highly than they do even their own wives/daughters. I bumped into one of them about the time that asking for nude trophies were something of a mini-trend, and it occurred to me that a lot of these scammers would think nothing of ordering their underaged children to strip off for the camera if they thought a buck was coming to them for it. They would probably ship them to you in a cardboard box without holes in it if there were enough money involved. One of these lovely gents not only verbally ran down his wife and women in general after I had upset him, he also threatened to hunt down my character and brutally rape her. Charming.

In short, do nothing illegal. Lads are not worth going to jail over. And if you have a low tolerance for possibly causing harm of some sort to someone other than the scammers, or the scammers themselves, stay away from "extreme trophies". The chances might be remote that someone other than the scammer is harmed, but keep that in mind when you ask for trophies.

I suggest signing up for a mentor and starting very slow nd simple. Find out if baiting is for you. Straight baiting can be marvelously fun, and any time wasting for the lad is all good for us. Keep in mind that comedy baits often require a lot more work and result in more disappointment, and you're not as likely to get a high reply rate when running funny baits. Being a "straight baiter" (acting as much like a real victim as possible) is a lot less work, the baits still often take very funny turns, and you don't have the frustration of working months for a trophy only to get a really crappy and obvious fake. Straight baiting is good "trainer" baiting. You can always get more zany as you become more practiced. Please read all the sticky threads and FAQs as well. They contain important information about keeping safe and not accidentally helping the lads. Or better yet, wait for first contact from your mentor before starting a bait.

Bait safe is our mantra.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:42 am

I only know of two people who could bait a guy into getting a tattoo and one them was my ex wife.

I view the line that should not be crossed as being that line between legal and illegal but the ethical line is much harder to define. The large numbers of Eater members here come from diverse backgrounds and views. The ethical line not to cross is probably different for you and I. One line that all of us have crossed is that we consider it OK to lie to thwart the lads from scamming innocent people. We think that it is OK to send the lad on a safari to a distant city to "collect their money". That costs the lad money and in Nigeria and other countries might even be dangerous. But then again the lad might step out in front of a bus on his way to the WU.

Before you go for a outrageous trophy you might want to examine the ethical points before you go further. As for lines not to cross read the FAQ's, stickies, and rules of the forum.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:42 am

Welcome New Folk... and good to see questioning minds abound.

I like the suggestion that you get your feet wet with some nice simple time wasting and focus on public education. In my personal view- the critical thing here is noth the money shot or the trophy, but the maximum burn on lad-time and lad-resources. And while we can all appreciate Shivers' getting a lad to tattoo his ass blue, and to pierce his nipples with barbed wire or whatever outrageous stunt he will pull off next time- you need to remember that Shivers has YEARS of baiting experience, and is pulling an uber stunt once in a great while with a lad who has special reasons to get taken to a certain special place.

Shivers, and I hope all of us, New Folk included, should always remember the cardinal rules of baiting safe and zero collateral damage. Consider your baits in advance- can an innocent bystander be hurt/poisoned/crushed/exposed to radiation/burn his fingers/be splashed with acid/suffer loss of limb, sight, hearing or physical sensation/be traumatized in any manner? Then maybe you want to tweak that modality a bit. You don't want to hurt people who are not involved in the scam, ever- that is not justifiable under any morality.

And- Be aware that you are dealing with criminals here. They are not happy stuffed animals that come out of the toy box and do silly things in clown suits for us- they are hard crimnals who would not think twice about kidnapping, or hurting a mugu deeply. They will happily steal every single penny you own, and they will pray to God that he grant them the ability to do the same theft to ten more people like you. They will fark you up bad if they catch you.

So bait safe.

Bait without the possiblity of damage to innocents.

And don't think so hard about work for yourself- they work, you direct. Think: You = George Lucas, They = uncreditted extra on the set, made to run around and look silly for 98 takes of the same shot, and still not get credit or union scale when the filming is over.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:46 am

What Onefish said. When it comes to "how far to go", in most cases the decision has to be made by the baiter (the exception being things that can harm an innocent third party, such as sending virii). Your intuition and personal ethics will decide where and how far to take a bait, and taking things slow at first will help you get a real handle on how things work.

BTW- @Onefish-
EXCELLENT post! clapping

[Edit] FFS! I NEED to type faster, dammit!!!

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:47 am

As much fun as getting your lad to hold up a venomous snake would be, chances are he's not going to do it, at least not himself.

These lads seem dumb, especially when you read the baits. But, for every idiot lad that gets a tattoo, there must be at least fifty who won't fall for it. I'm willing to bet that the people getting the tattoos in the pictures aren't even the same people that Shiver had been corresponding with.

Would you be able to get a picture of a guy holding up a snake? Maybe if you try long enough. Will it be the guy you've been emailing? Who knows. Will you have better luck getting them to do something equally embarrasing but not life-threatening? Most definitely.

- Bill

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:12 am

There is a sticky called The Ethics of Scambaiting prepared at length by some of the senior members of this forum, for those interested.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:22 am

Personally, if I was one-hundred percent sure it was a lad who had been scamming for some time and I had my pick of trophies, I would demand a photo of him blindfolded and riding a unicycle the wrong way down a four lane highway in the middle of rush hour.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:23 am

... but then you have to worry about some poor, innocent third party's car... and making a terrible mess on their windscreen...

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:36 am

Personally, I couldn't give a flying about the scammer or the implications on his life with regards to anything I request.

On the other hand, there is always the consideration that the person with the tattoo of "I am a tool" on his forehead isn't actually the scammer, but someone who has been accosted.

I would get to know the scammer and evaluate each on a case by case basis. There are ways to be more certain that the person in the trophies is actually your mugu.

Jam3s

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:41 am

As others have said, ethics is the personal choice of the baiter. I get more out of wasting their time and resources, and making fools out of them. If you think about it, if someone punches you hard and leaves a nasty sore bruise, that will heal pretty quickly. If someone humiliates you, especially publicly, that is much harder to face up to and get over/live down.

A vicious or violent person I am not, and I would not knowingly have a lad do anything that would injure himself/herself, or another person, even if it is a scammer. I would not want that on my conscience, and I also think of it this way - these criminals are always fake praying to God in their scams, and trying to act like they are Christian; they are going to have to answer to the very one that they are using to scam people, and that judgement will be much more harsh on their damned souls than I could ever be. I am not preaching religion, far from it - I am just saying that I have seen what goes around come around.

My baits are straight baits, and I have gotten a lot of trophies, many without even trying. Trophies are inconsequential to my baits - I am more interested in keeping the scammers away from real victims, and other aspects of baiting.

Each person has his or her own ideas, and their reasons for baiting. They also have their own conscience to answer to.

EDIT: I have no ethical issues with Shiver getting a lad to have a tatoo put on himself. This is the choice of the lad and I do find it to be funny since the lad was willing to get a tatoo, and especially a tatoo that says."Baited by Shiver." What I was referring to was serious injury that could cause disfigurement, illness, or death where the person has no control over the outcome.

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

And for those of you concerned about my current plans; no bodily mutilation or harm will come to anyone. In fact I'm willing to bet some of your will say, "Ahh... that's so cute", and have a warm fluffy feeling.

There is only one lad left in my current tattooing phase, and after that I have a few new (and scammer-friendly) ideas up my sleeves.

I would definitely recommend that all newcomers carefully read the FAQs here, and especially The Ethics of Scambaiting, a link to which can be found at the top of this very forum.

Elite Baiter Joined: 03 May 2004 Posts: 1008

I am with Steve Brimley. If you are sure it is the scammer... I would recommend snake handeling or anything similar. I have yet to convince a scammer to put a hot iron to his face but there is hope.

Master of Master Baiters Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 732

MrSpock wrote:

I realize that 419 scammers are the lowest form of human life on the planet, but it is still human life.

It is? Ok, speaking strictly biologically, yes, I see what you mean.

MrSpock wrote:

Is there some kind of baiting ethic that says we don't try to entice lads into situations where they are putting themselves in real danger of being injured or killed?

Nothing universal I think, like this thread shows it's pretty much your own choice. The important thing is not to harm any third parties (which you can't always be sure whether you're doing or not).
In this case I would not take that risk, the lad is a bit too likely to hire someone else for it methinks...

MrSpock wrote:

it's OK to let him reap the consequences of his own stupidity?

Personally, I really don't like that justification at all, "they are stupid so they deserve it". It's one the scammers often use as well. Make fools out of them because they are greedy criminals with no conscience whatsoever, that's justification enough and their stupidity is merely a tool towards that end Smile

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:38 am

Buzzy wrote:

I only know of two people who could bait a guy into getting a tattoo and one them was my ex wife.

You were married to Shiver??? Shocked

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:48 am

@ shunt.

If anyone is struggling with the ethical issue, here's a line they might like to take. It's not one I personally subscribe to, but people find that the mercury on their moral thermometers sits at different levels, and that's okay. Smile

There is a difference between applying a harmful tactic to the lad, and allowing the lad to apply himself to the harmful tactic. Police operations can be judged by this kind of test to see whether they amount to entrapment. Going to a specifically targetted criminal and trying to get him to buy stolen goods is applying the trap to him, but leaving a van unlocked in the hope that a passing scumbag will steal it or the contents is letting the criminal apply himself to the trap. The baiting analogy would be asking a specific lad to get a tattoo as compared to sending out loads of ASEMs informing lads that they can join your church by getting a tattoo done. The ones that choose to reply have applied themselves to the harmful tactic.

As I said, it is not a distinction that I feel the need to make; lads are not quite the lowest form of life imo (rapists, murderers and child abusers occupy that slot on my scale, although there is clearly an overlap in some lads' cases) but they are definitely only marginally above that, and I don't have much of an ethical problem with most of the things I see here.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:31 am

To follow on from Eight's comment...

As a personal IMHO there are *no* circumstances where one should proceed if there is the smallest quantifiable risk of harm to a collateral.

Being gung ho with the lads is one thing but risking harm to others is unacceptable.

The ends never justify the means.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:18 pm

Being a strong believer in human rights (and by the way a fellow newbie), I cannot support any physical punishment what so ever. Chopping off hands, capital punishment, whipping, branding - call it what you like - I am against it. I specifically do not think, there should be death penalty for scamming, which at the end of the day is far from the worst crime one can indulge in, and I would never ask someone to do something dangerous. Plenty of fun making them pose for stupid pics and just generally wasting their time.

Well, I don't know how many times, people I have discussed stuff like this with, have told me: "You are just sooo European". Well, there is no discussing that... Wink

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:48 pm

The Ethics of Baiting facts is very informative. I suggest all those who are new read it.

I certainly agree that all scammers are fair game. The scammers are criminals who kill and steal from innocent people. They ruin countless number of lives in the process for their selfish gain.

It's totally up to the baiter how you feel about "punishing" them. If you can go to bed at night knowing that a scammer died from a poisonous snake bite, then it's your call. Keep in mind that we don't always know if that was the scammer in the photograph. The scammers will force people or bribe people into their bidding.

My baits always involve humiliation, funny signs and time wasting methods. The most humiliating thing I did to the lads was skin him (nude photos), and I never did and will feel guilty for it. That is the most severe thing that my ethics will allow me to go. I never want to involve any physical harm to the lads. It would be great watching them lose an arm or 2 so that they can't continue to scam victims. I believe it's not my decision to do that. I'll leave it to those baiters have enough hatred towards theses criminals to do it.

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:03 pm

I would much rather get the lad severely beaten by his OGA. This way I am sure the one getting punished is the lad I am after.

But I would not do anyhting that could involve death like a live posionous snake if I could not be sure whom was gonna croak...

B

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:45 am

Well, I've had lads make me very serious death threats on their FIRST phone call. I am also in no doubt that some lads would have have my characters murdered as well if they could find them, and if they existed.

So, well, let's just say that I have a more "relaxed" attitude to certain lads. If they are dangerous murderous scum, then I would not mind any fate that befalls them, especially if I can arrange it. My simple rule is that I would treat them the way that they would treat my characters, basically.

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:25 pm

I think that anyone human at one time or other has to wrestle with a moral issue or two...

I like the comparison of baiting to the legal test for entrapment... that is pretty similar to what I arrived at myself and I find it very satisfactory.

My only objection to the tattoo modality was that the HIV propagation rate in Nigeria is 4 times the birth rate... and a person who becomes infected makes choices in advance for third parties they haven't even met yet. Getting someone infected accidentally would be like dropping an AP mine and giving no mind to whether or not it might be armed or who might pick it up.

Yes, the HIV transmission rate is their own fault... they prefer ignorance to breaking the social taboos that would allow them to inform their people. I personally won't add to it. Darwin will have to proceed ahead without my small contribution... yeah, like I could talk someone into something like that... pfft.

There is something to be said for branding... it is zero risk of HIV transmission... although it does invite other types of infection.
Branding is also significantly more painful than a tatt, and I personally think a nice scar would show better.

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:37 pm

Read what scammers have done in the past. Hence, my more "relaxed" attitude to their well-being...

www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1641875,00.html
www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=500&fArticleId=2353672
www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=500&fArticleId=2354567

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:08 pm

Anything that involves serious physical harm, and by serious I mean maiming or killing, would be going a little too far for me. A possible exception to that would be the maniacs mentioned in shrek's links above. Even then, getting them safely behind bars, sharing a cell for 35 years with Big Boris the arse rapist would be preferable.

Humiliating pictures, tattoos, nipple piercings etc are all well within the boundaries of acceptable retribution for causing the misery they do.

Baiting ethics - is there a line that shouldn't be crossed?	View next topic View previous topic