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 2:56 am

This might sound sort of weird but some of the stuff that I have seen on this board that has made me laugh the hardest has been some of the comments that have been directed at me and others about what they have done to lads. One of my all-time favorite quotes went something like the following...

Quote:

It's just shocking to see someone being so mercilessly fucked over by one of the good guys.

For whatever reason, that one still makes me laugh.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:04 am

^^^^^

From my favourite ethics thread.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:12 am

Pizzas anyone ...............?

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Gordon wrote:

TS, I was genuinely surprised at you.

I'm not sure why.

I really don't have anything against ethics threads, provided they actually accomplish something positive. If you dig back in the archives you may find a few threads that questioned the way things were being done here and eventually shaped a new direction that the Eater community took. Cashbaiting would be one type discussion, I suppose. Sadly, many of the threads that I read when I first signed up don't exist anymore after the server crash and move last year.

There are other types of ethics threads, however, that accomplish nothing. They are usually characterized by a member claiming the moral highground while accusing everyone who disagrees with his/her position of being morally bankrupt or deficient. Portions of posts are quoted back and forth as each side tries to make its point, occasionally some name calling is tossed in for good measure, and the final outcome is 'if it makes you uncomfortable, don't do it,' or one of its variations.

Nothing positive to that at all- Eater doesn't take a new direction, no concrete agreement is reached and, for the members who have seen this type of thread more than once, it merely ensures that more people will automatically roll their eyes the next time an ethics thread is started, instead of reading the post and debating its merits or lack of.

The reason for my snark, however, had to do solely with my belief that this debate was restarted only for the purpose of taking a swipe at the moderator who deleted Foss' "dog wanking" post.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:00 am

GordonBennett wrote:

No-one likes a criminal except other crims.

Umm... if this is true, then everyone involved is a criminal, no? For those saying that the rest of the choir doesn't know that the lad is scamming... Honey, please. Do you really think the yahoo yahoo boy hides what he does for living? Sure he does, the same way a Los Angeles gang member hides the money he makes from from dealing drugs and illegal weapons when he shows up for church on Sunday wearing a ton of bling-bling around his neck, or cruises the neighborhood in his new caddy every afternoon.

Give the members of the choir some credit for having a brain. They know exactly how this guy "earns" his money, and have chosen to follow him. Don't forget that the choir members who wanted payment upfront were dismissed. They were the honest ones, the rest are just rolling the dice and going along hoping for a payday.

Call it what you want, but knowing a criminal is one thing... going into business with him is another.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:28 am

Sorry folks, needed sleep and things.

@yeawhatever and Jojo

Believe me, this has nothing to do with what you do to the lads. I really have no qualms about them being punished to the extreme limits of your imagination. this is about including innocent thrid parties.

Now, I think I probably need to clarify what I mean by 3rd parties, because a lot of people seem to believe that including people doing their day to day job as being one. My opinion is that if a 3rd party has performed their job, as they normally would, and has not really had any experience from a bait that they would not have come across if they were doing their day to day job normally then I don't have an issue.

My issue is where a 3rd party is involved directly as a bait, and could potentially be adversely impacted as a result of it. I think there is a significant differnece between the two.

@Jimmy Jazz

I agree, there is a lot of jumping ot conclusions, but I work on the hteory that an innocent is innocent until proven guilty. I know its a tough concept for people to grasp but I think it is a more appropriate way to view things. Lack of evidence should suggest that that action has not occurred. In a similar vein, without evidence that the people are being paid, I fail to see how you can use that to justify an argument. It'd be like me saying there are flying pigs because in my mind I think that they probably can.

@TSnerd

Firstly, no idea what navel gazing means to tell you the truth. Head down staring at my stomach??? Seems a little bizare but oh well.

As for the claim that you think that this is an attack on someone that deleted my post and I had made it personal. In all honesty, that post was not really at the forefront of my mind at any point during this, until SP decided that something inappropriate enough to delete in the forum is appropriate enough to then post in the forum to help out his side.

However, SP convieniently didn't post my message to him regarding the deletion of the post, which I have decided to quote below, because heaven forbid that he should try to take an objective approach to a debate:

Quote:

No worries mate. It was more of a theory about how far I could get them to go. I guss it would have made more sense if I had of explained that my current alias is that of a Dog Breeder, and I was thinking that I don't really want them to find dogs to send, because that'd be cruel, but I may be able to get them to do something worse that wouldn't harm an animal.

Fair enough though. Sorry about that mate. I was just seeing whether everyone thought that I may have been taking it a bit far. Now I need to come up with another plan to do with dog breeding. Any ideas?

Now, I read that and I think to myself that that is not the response of a bitter person. I mean, you may read more into things such as "No worries mate", because that is obviously the sign of someone pissed off. Or maybe the "fair enough though" or "Sorry about that mate" part was the resentful part. Can't quite work it out myself, so if you'd like to explain it to me TS it'd be much appreciated. Though, I have afeeling that you may struggle.

I could have included that as a response earlier, but i didn't think that it was related to the argument at hand. However, you decided to take the side of a person that had been here a long time and was a respectable Mod because it suited your impression of the situation, and impression guided by the fact that one of us decided to display part of a story to suit his own personal needs. It wasn't me who attempted to make this personal, and I'd like you to realise that, and drop that kind of argument against me, because I have a lot more character than that.

Now, back on to the more general ethics debate which I was trying to raise. I still have not seen a single argument from any person regarding why is is justifiable to include innocent 3rd parties in a bait. I honestly look forward to reading some reasoning. I am not set in my ways, and if you can give me perfectly valid arguments why, without sounding like you just like to bully people I may be willing to change my opinions. Anyone??

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:39 am

Hey foss,

I may be way off topic here but you seem to be going on about involving innocent 3rd parties ???? no experienced baiter here would ever do such a thing as involve innocent people in their baits and it is not condoned to do so here in this forum.

For that reason alone I do not think anyone here will try to justify that action. The closest you would get to setting someone up is setting one mugu against another, which is condoned and is fun too Twisted Evil

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:50 am

Quote:

ingredients
5 oz guanciale (unsmoked cured hog jowl) or pancetta (actually Speck will do Wink

)
1 medium onion, finely chopped
1/4 cup dry white wine
1 lb spaghetti
3 large eggs
1 1/2 oz Parmigiano-Reggiano, finely grated (3/4 cup)
3/4 oz Pecorino Romano, finely grated (1/3 cup)
1 teaspoon coarsely ground black pepper
1/4 teaspoon salt

preparation
Cut guanciale or pancetta into 1/3-inch dice, then cook in a deep 12-inch heavy skillet over moderate heat, stirring, until fat begins to render, 1 to 2 minutes. Add onion and cook, stirring occasionally, until onion is golden, about 10 minutes. Add wine and boil until reduced by half, 1 to 2 minutes.

Cook spaghetti in a 6- to 8-quart pot of boiling salted water until al dente.

While pasta is cooking, whisk together eggs, Parmigiano-Reggiano , Pecorino Romano (1/3 cup), 1 teaspoon coarsely ground black pepper, and 1/4 teaspoon salt in a small bowl.

Drain spaghetti in a colander and add to onion mixture, then toss with tongs over moderate heat until coated. Remove from heat and add egg mixture, tossing to combine. Serve immediately.

Cooks' note:
The eggs in this recipe will not be fully cooked, which may be of concern if there is a problem with salmonella in your area.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:09 am

Dark Spirit wrote:

Hey foss,

I may be way off topic here but you seem to be going on about involving innocent 3rd parties ???? no experienced baiter here would ever do such a thing as involve innocent people in their baits and it is not condoned to do so here in this forum.

For that reason alone I do not think anyone here will try to justify that action. The closest you would get to setting someone up is setting one mugu against another, which is condoned and is fun too Twisted Evil

I agree wholeheartedly. This debate is really about where do you draw the line. If you are baiting a lad, and because of directives you give him he involves innocent 3rd parties in a manner which directly impacts on their well being, should you not stop him?

You pretty much sum up my opinion exactly in that we should not be doing that. However, people appear to put their own amusement before their baiters responsibilities. One mugu against another, fine and dandy. One mugu and someone who we do not know whether they are a mugu or not. Not so good.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:10 am

Excellent receipe Don, so what time's lunch?

And why are you not using metric measurements ? Cool

@ Foss

You beat me to the post but yes I agree with you, we as baiters must know the limits Wink

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:10 am

Don wrote:

Quote:

ingredients
5 oz guanciale (unsmoked cured hog jowl) or pancetta (actually Speck will do Wink

)
1 medium onion, finely chopped
1/4 cup dry white wine
1 lb spaghetti
3 large eggs
1 1/2 oz Parmigiano-Reggiano, finely grated (3/4 cup)
3/4 oz Pecorino Romano, finely grated (1/3 cup)
1 teaspoon coarsely ground black pepper
1/4 teaspoon salt

[Cooks' note:
The eggs in this recipe will not be fully cooked, which may be of concern if there is a problem with salmonella in your area.

Hog Jowl and potential Salmonella poisoning. Mmmmmmmm...

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:26 am

Quote:

unsmoked cured hog jowl

Oh barf!

Slayerfaith wrote:

then everyone involved is a criminal

Curse your flawless logic! Smile

But you know what I mean - it wasn't meant to be the literal truth.

Slayerfaith wrote:

They know exactly how this guy "earns" his money

But that's the point - how do you know? It's assumptions. If you see someone with jewelery turn up at church do you really 'know' they are criminals? What about a sweet little old lady? A young urban coloured guy? How do you know the guy didn't earn his money on the stock market and the little old lady didn't just fly in from Columbia with a kilo up her whatsit? Assumptions and stereotypes are a dangerous combo.
Innocent till proven guilty, not guilt by association or assumption.
And no, Rolling Eyes

I don't think the choir think he is a stock broker, I think they probably guess a variety of sources of his money - if he has any, he seems to be such a twit that I doubt he is successful. There is a distinct possibility that they are just trusting and gullible. And mind-bogglingly stupid.

TSnerd wrote:

I really don't have anything against ethics threads

That's why I was surprised. I agree with 99% of what you say though (re. your last sentence, I didn't read it the way you did). I suppose you have to wade through a lot of crap in order to find a few gems of ethics, and to my mind this thread is starting to waver, but I think the central premise is worth debating. It just seems to hinge on not so much whether ITPs should be involved, but defining them.
I disagree with guilt by association, for the most part - the degree of complicity would be a moot point. My major concern - one of them - is the effect any bait would have on ITPs: surgical strike, neighbours cheering etc as I said above.
Having read YW's Road bait I don't actually have as much of a problem with it others seem to - BTW the email link is down, YW.

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

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Foss wrote:

However, you decided to take the side of a person that had been here a long time and was a respectable Mod because it suited your impression of the situation...[snipped]

Not at all.

I came to that conclusion based on the information available to me at the time. Length of membership here matters even less to me than postcount.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:05 pm

edit: Full quote of previous post removed. Look up, it's all there ^^^^ (Don)

Sorry about that. It was just that I seem to cop a lot of flak just because I have only just started posting in here. I just took your post to be another one of that little select club, and I apologise.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:08 pm

Dark Spirit wrote:

And why are you not using metric measurements ?

Because I trust continental Europeans to google a converting tool. Brits on the other hand... Rolling Eyes

*

Foss wrote:

Hog Jowl and potential Salmonella poisoning. Mmmmmmmm...

I choose to ignore your obsessed ramblings and would like to ask you to see me as a third party and not hassle my innocent parallel thread. Thank you.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Fair enough.

I apologize, also. Very Happy

My conclusion was wrong.

And he was too slow to edit the post himself. Again. (Don)

Oh, sure. Rub it in.... Sad

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:15 pm

I apologise too - not sure why, but we seem to have gone all touchy-feely and I love a crowd.

Anyway, none of you swine would tell me that it was Iggy Pop, so I asked that nice Mr Google. Funnily enough he pointed me at this http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/iggypop/iggypop14.html in which the nice Mr Pop (or one of his stooges) expresses his opinion of speck. Very Happy

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 12:45 pm

Foss wrote:

This debate is really about where do you draw the line.

I think preventing ITPs from having a great time doing what they enjoy doing with or without the lad's involvement is going over the line. Rolling Eyes

Still can't believe 6 pages over a song & dance performed by a CHOIR.

Let's assume every person other than the lad was actually innocent & oblivious. I believe it's a safe assumption that the CHOIR members might be spotted singing somewhere even if the lad hadn't come along so how could their wellbeing be adversely affected or even foreseeably adversely affected? Singing is not an inherently dangerous activity. Those people actually like to sing & are apparently good at it too. Like you said, if the TP would be going about his normal routine when dealing with the lad there is no real issue. Well this is what they would normally be doing in their spare time regardless, CHOIRS do sing after all, so what is the big deal? Or were you refering to job duties only & not leisure activities?

Let the ITPs have their fun!!! Last I checked, we are not the fun police (unless that's what those badges really stand for). Confused

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:19 pm

To tell you the truth, we were trying to steer this away from that particular thread, and more towards the ethics of 3rd party involvement. I was using that thread as an example, because it was the most recent and popular one in recent times.

It was not meant to be a discussion about the church choir in particular. Unfortunately people just focused on that part of the argument.

maybe a mod could change the heading to something to reflect less of the village people, and more of the whole 3rd party involvment thing.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:41 pm

Can I just say, from an empirical standpoint there is no ethical question here.

The baiter is not involving 3rd parties. (NB: When I mention 3rd parties I am talking about 3rd parties in respect to this bait, not bait's in general).

The scammer may be, but that is the scammer's prerogative.

You cannot stop him involving 3rd parties, and 3rd parties cannot (hopefully) be forced to accept his proposals.

He makes a representation to them, just as he does to you when he writes to you "I am Col. Gen. Sgt. Happy Gopluckmyself and I need your help...".

You are not making any representation of any sort to any 3rd party. (By 'you' I mean any baiter in general).

The fact that they choose to accept what he is saying is, to be judicial, their own decision. They more than likely know what this guy does for a living... he lies. Moreover, he is not trying to scam them, they are not his victims, they are his accomplices.

Obviously if you were baiting and you knew your bait would be detrimental to 3rd parties in general then that would raise ethical questions.

But ask yourself this: Are you hurting 3rd parties when you send your lad to, lets say, Chad where you know he's going to run out of money and more than likely scam/steal in order to get home. Be that by not paying his fare, siphoning petrol or simply stowing away?

Answer, in my opinion: No. He is hurting them, and if you tiptoe forever he will simply continue to do so, but with much greater ease.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:45 pm

@ Foss Ahh ok...well then I think if the ITP gets to have a smashing good time doing something they enjoy anyway I don't see the problem. If the ITP winds up suffering physical pain as a result well then that's not so good obviously. I've never seen anyone suggest causing or potentially causing trauma to an ITP is acceptable. Say you have your lad round up 10 people to go pick flowers with him, that is not something worthy of an ethics discussion IMO. If you have the lad round up 10 people to go wrestle crocodiles, test out a new pipe bomb design, jump off the roof of a house, drive a car into a brick wall at 50 mph, etc. well ok then we'd have something to discuss.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:47 pm

You're only really hurting the scammer. If he tells his friends that they will get paid for the village people performance and then he does not pay them he will become untrustworthy and probably unpopular to boot.

He may also end up feeling rather stupid and quit his scamming career altogether.

Thopse guys looked like they were having fun to me, definitely not being hurt. I'm sure if any of those people had anything better to do - for instance hunt buffalo, police the streets, construct a building of round up some cattle - I'm sure they would have done so.

So in the end those villagers have had a bit of a laugh and the scammer will not further his cause.

Master Baiter Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 143

And here I thought I was going to get my post count up! Crying or Very sad

thefife and malleus have just covered everything I have to say on the subject damn near word for word.

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:57 pm

^^ Oh did I forget to mention I'm psychic? Embarassed

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:01 pm

Don wrote

Quote:

Because I trust continental Europeans to google a converting tool. Brits on the other hand...

Damm, I hate to say it being British but, YEP you are right Laughing

OK all appologies accepted so what time does the group hug start Laughing

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