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: Wed May 30, 2007 11:36 am

Foss wrote:

...These people he has convinced generally have very little in their lives. They basically started off in life with a giant kick to the nuts but unfortunately being born in a country like Nigeria. there is very little that they can do to improve their lives...

That is the logic that scammers usually put forward. If that were totally true, then how come there are honest people there? Bottom line - you can argue yourself into whatever viewpoint you wish but that does not obscure the fact the teh scammers are vicious criminals who will stoop to shit levels to scam anyone they get.

Foss wrote:

... Then, someone approaches them saying that they have come in contact with someone that can make their lives better and gives them that little bit of hope. Admitedly it is the President of the United States, which is a little farfetched...

The point of the matter is that Mr Lad here sent an email to [email protected]. So it was HE who made the first approach and not the other way around as you seem to think. And obviously that first approach was with intent to scam.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:39 am

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you: A DEBATE! ON THE INTERNET!

Quote:

In hindsight, I think the agree with you that the ethics side and the topics side should be kept seperate. But somehow people should be reminded that they have a responsibility not to stoop to the level of a scammer. So, hile I am relating to the third parties in general, it is easier if I use the George Bush bait as an example for my arguments.

A dangerous equation. By admitting a baiters responsibility not to go too far, you also admit a scammers incompetence of making a well thought out desicion. This would suppose a superiority of baiter over scammer. Since we think that baiters and scammers should be treated alike, we save this responsability for the real extreme cases outlined in my last post.

Quote:

What I don't think people realise is that you have to view these things in context. For someone in a western civilisation who generally has a whole lot, you have to take yourself out of what you know and walk a mile in another persons shoes.

Read Old Coasters posts in the Ethics Thread

Quote:

The arguments people raise about Third parties such as WU employees and things are just ridiculous. I'm talking about harm to a person, whereas someone doing their job, without any knowledge of the impact of what they are doing is a little different.

The equation is far less ridiculous than your latter one comparing murder to "making a funny video". I will accept your definition of harm for now.

Quote:

Dealing to the scammer is fine. Hell, he wants to rip of little old ladies so I really couldn't give a crap about him. Then he approaches this choir and convinces them to join in and he may be able to make a big improvement to their lives (this is where the walking a mile in another person shoes kicks in). These people he has convinced generally have very little in their lives. They basically started off in life with a giant kick to the nuts but unfortunately being born in a country like Nigeria. there is very little that they can do to improve their lives, but they keep on going, find god, faith in fellow man and all that BS.

I suppose if I was Nigerian, I would take a tremendous offence to "unforunately being born in Nigeria". I'm trying to see your point here, but it is being clouded by a tremendous amount of selfinsured superiority.

Quote:

Then, someone approaches them saying that they have come in contact with someone that can make their lives better and gives them that little bit of hope. Admitedly it is the President of the United States, which is a little farfetched, but no more so than �150m of Nigerian gold which a lot of us clever westerners fall for. Then, after dragging them along for a little bit, the baiter goes and kick them in the nuts yet again. I guess there is the argument that they are used to it, but it seems really rubbish.

Not entirely. A fellow Nigerian approaches them with this plan and contracts them to make a video and a song. This contract should include their payment/reward from the scammer. If it all goes to naught and the scammer doesn't receive a single penny, they still have an agreement with the scammer for compensation. As far as the "International fame" goes, I think I can draw a paralell here to American Idols, where thousands of girls humiliate theirselves and one gets the big contract at the end.

Quote:

So, using this example, lets look at the arguments justify this part of the bait. Mainly it is that the scam artist who has duped them and not the baiter. People may inherently believe this, but to argue against it I'm going to use a real criminal case which occurred in NZ.

A 'P addict (which is a type of highly addictive drug in NZ) conducted a number of armed robberies high as a kite on the drug, during which he murdered a number of people in cold blood. The reason he committed these crimes is to fund his habit he attempted to sell 'P' but then was mugged for the drug. He couldn't pay the manufacturers for it, so the 4 guys who made the stuff told him that he had to commit a robbery. They gave him the weapons and the equipment, and detailed how he should do it. then he killed a man. Scared, they made him do it over and over again, and took the money. When he was caught, these guys were also eventually caught, and sentenced to longer terms than he was.

Making a funny video is NOT a criminal act, and therefore the two do not fall in the same category as far as the TPS is concerned. I see the paralel, read on.

Quote:

Now, a baiter has convinced a scammer to include his church choir, and has led them along to believe that they may be able to make a better life for themselves. He has given them the motive, and the means to do this. He ultimately receives the benefit (namely a hilarious video) so why should he be distanced from the scam of the church. He is the driving force for the entire charade, so you seriously have to be kidding yourself if you think that a baiter is not responsible for any actions a scammer does because of a bait.

Here comes the big part: yes. A scambait is a reverse scam, but no material harm is to be inflicted upon the scammer. The scammer is, however, free to commit material (in this case most probable financial) harm upon himself. Our responsability for the scammer (not his own contract) goes as far as the legal boundaries go. In this case, no crime was comitted by the choir. The choir was only contracted for the completely legal purpose of singing a song. They can, they should demand their money from the scammer.

Quote:

Now, i am more than happy to refute any other justifications which people like to use to explain why a baiter should be allowed to let a scammer involve a bunch of 3rd parties. just post them below, because I can't be arsed looking for them.

In this (absolutely incredible) bait by YW, the third party rule also came into discussion. Read his opinion as well. [/url]

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:47 am

--> foss

And while your concern for third party is totaly justified, do tell us how singing in a choir constitutes a danger to the third parties.

If the singers were promised money and fame by Mr Lad, then it is Mr Lad who is scamming them too - in addition to his attempts at scamming GWB. He is under no compulsion whatsoever exceot the driving force of his own greed.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:57 am

Does anyone have a family favourite Spaghetti alla Puttanesca recipe they are willing to share? I'd like to try something different.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I do have one suggestion.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:10 pm

Seven of Nine wrote:

...suggestion

Hopethat's an offer the Moddy's will not be able to refuse?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:11 pm

Scammers don't live in isolation - unfortunately. I think running a choir is probably a superior way for him to spend his time than many of the alternative things he could be involved in. He's probably learned a skill and found something better to spend his time on. It could always lead to something better for him.

When a Lad is baited you don't adopt him to lead him to a more prosperous future - he believes scamming will do that. It would be nice if you could - but many of the Lads we bait are long term adversaries and up to their necks in every type of fraud and crime you could imagine.

If you think hurting a scammer's feeling is beyond your ethical limits then don't bait, and don't complain when they reduce you, your family or friends to a state of penury leading them to contemplate suicide. That has third party effects too, but somewhat more tragic than spending some time singing.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:13 pm

If a man gives me a price to paint my home, its not my problem who or how many people he hires to help. Neutral

And if he screws it up, it is his responsibility to fix it. Smile

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:15 pm

[quote="Zorro"]That is the logic that scammers usually put forward. If that were totally true, then how come there are honest people there? Bottom line - you can argue yourself into whatever viewpoint you wish but that does not obscure the fact the teh scammers are vicious criminals who will stoop to shit levels to scam anyone they get.[/quote]

Umm... I agree. I'm not arguing for the scammer, who I think I remember saying I don't really care what you do to them, or something along those lines. I'm saying that a lot of the people who are not the scammer are potentially honest people.

[quote="Zorro"] The point of the matter is that Mr Lad here sent an email to [email protected]. So it was HE who made the first approach and not the other way around as you seem to think. And obviously that first approach was with intent to scam.[/quote]

Did you even read what I posted, or only pick out the words you understand? I am referring to the scammer approaching the choir, which he would not have done if the baiter had not let him. I repeat in big letters - I DO NOT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE SCAMMER. However, the scammer approachs a 3rd party because of a baiter. A baiter can always stop them.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:17 pm

Very interesting discussion. I've noticed one point in all this that has not been mentioned.
How do we know that the group of people we have seen singing is a church choir? I don't remember seeing anything which was given as proof of this. I may have missed something, or are we to accept the word of a person (the scammer) who is know to be a somewhat less than truthful, dishonest and even could be classed as a thief, could this group of people also be his friendly scammer mates who have got together to make a song?

At what point do you pull out of a bait, how do you tell that the new characters being introduced by your Lad are ITP's? I've now run through 21 baits, 3 of which did not have a second or third person involved?

I seem to remember another thread about not being untruthful to scammers, and in this thread, about not stooping to their level.
How do you avoid that? deceit is with you from your first message, that's their level from the get-go, isn't it?

The regulation in place does work, if the denizens of this site were not happy with the bait, having seen it published, they would say so, I've seen it before, and it'll happen again.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm

Foss wrote:

Did you even read what I posted, or only pick out the words you understand?

I only pick out the words I understand ... how did you guess .... ? Laughing

And I've replied about the singers too. Gomer also makes an excellent point

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:25 pm

Coronalight's analogy is simple yet beautiful. Also a +1 on Gomer's reply.

@foss, care to read my reply as well? I've tried to address the choir's possibilities. The choir (is it a choir) hasn't been harmed in any way, and are free to demand payment from the scammer.

Yes, ladies and gents, Scambaiting is SERIOUS BUISNESS.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:26 pm

Quote:

deceit is with you from your first message

True

It is so easy to get caught up in the logical loopholes people are arguing or to get annoyed by the sound of minds closing - like I said, if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny it isn't worth jack.

In my view some of the points are valid on both sides, but I keep coming back to the point that makes me so uneasy.. plenty of assumptions have been made, or possibilities suggested as to the motives of the lad, his friends and all involved. The truth is that we are just guessing, some clearly doing so to justify their actions/statements.

What makes me so uneasy is that this lad is so easy to bait now. It may be good training, it may be that he is a noob to it, or it may be neither. But how much satisfaction can there be in continuing this much further?
When I read that he is willingly making banners, sending stuff etc etc I'm not impressed with how skillfully he has been coerced into doing so any more. Sorry.

As to the suggestion to lock the thread - why? If you don't like it, don't read it. Hmm isn't that what someone said about this scam - double standards, anybody? Smile

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:32 pm

EDIT: Sorry, my qutations are not posting properly. No idea why. Changed it to colour instead. If that doesn't work then sorry about that too.

The equation is far less ridiculous than your latter one comparing murder to "making a funny video". I will accept your definition of harm for now

Sorry, wasn't attempting to imply that the outcome were similar, I was just showing an example of extented culpability.

I suppose if I was Nigerian, I would take a tremendous offence to "unforunately being born in Nigeria". I'm trying to see your point here, but it is being clouded by a tremendous amount of selfinsured superiority

Lol - point taken. Though i am not suggesting that I am born superior, however, I was born into better circumstances than a majority of peoplein the 3rd world. i.e. better healthcare, education, basic amenities, less corruption (witht he exception of a few nations that is of course). Sorry, generally I was suggesting that us of the 1st world nations generally have a better standard of living than most in 3rd worlds.

Not entirely. A fellow Nigerian approaches them with this plan and contracts them to make a video and a song. This contract should include their payment/reward from the scammer. If it all goes to naught and the scammer doesn't receive a single penny, they still have an agreement with the scammer for compensation. As far as the "International fame" goes, I think I can draw a paralell here to American Idols, where thousands of girls humiliate theirselves and one gets the big contract at the end.

Fair point, though what happens if they agree because they are led to believe that something great could come of this. the scammer was actually being sincere, because he believed it too, and so effectively the baiter has become the scammer, just through an intermediary. If the scammer offered to p[ay them for it then I don't really have an issue to tell you the truth. But, I have seen where they are doing it because of the long term results which they genuinely believe exist. Just like sending money to a scammer for legal fees to release imaginary money.

Making a funny video is NOT a criminal act, and therefore the two do not fall in the same category as far as the TPS is concerned. I see the paralel, read on.

Agreed. My issue is not a comparison of the offence, its an argument over who is utimately responsible for the inclusion of a 3rd party. But, to throw an idea out there, what if a 3rd party got killed as part of a bait. Is it still just the scammers fault?

Here comes the big part: yes. A scambait is a reverse scam, but no material harm is to be inflicted upon the scammer. The scammer is, however, free to commit material (in this case most probable financial) harm upon himself. Our responsability for the scammer (not his own contract) goes as far as the legal boundaries go. In this case, no crime was comitted by the choir. The choir was only contracted for the completely legal purpose of singing a song. They can, they should demand their money from the scammer.

Again, this would be if they had been told that they had been paid. What if all you gave them was hope. If a baiter then stopped it straight away and said that it wasn't good enough, they'll think they tried and failed. If they were led to believe that they were really good, and that they would be taken out of Nigeria and into America then it seems a little wrong. The scammer would tell them this, because the baiter effectively told him to. they scammer is literally now just an intermediary between the baiter scamming the church choir.

The issue really is not about what the scammer has done, but at what point is the baiter responsible. What happens if to get these people to do what the baiter demands, instead of asking them nicely, he holds them all at gunpoint and threatens to kill them? Is that overstepping the boundaries, or is that fine too. And if that is going to far, are you still suggesting that the baiter is in no way responsible?

In this (absolutely incredible) bait by YW, the third party rule also came into discussion. Read his opinion as well. [/url]

Will do it now.

Thanks for posting good arguments though. I appreciated it. I think my key thing is was not a comparison between murder and a video, it was distinguishing that there is a fine line between a baiter scamming a scammer, and actually becoming a scammer in their own right. The former I have no issues with. The latter makes a baiter no better than the filth he was trying to teach a lesson in the first place.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Still not sure how I got tagged as the originator of this thread.... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:33 pm

^ as for locking the thread, at some point 'we' reach the conclusion that 'we' are now going round in circles. Nothing new is added that is relevant to the original point, which I think was innocent third parties. Rather than fill up the thread with what is effectively a repeat of previously made comments then it might just as well be locked. Then 'we' can all go argue about the acceptance of the right of free speech. (and freedom to choose avatars that wind up the mods)

A lot of people have had a say on this thread, but now it really looks like its getting down to gain-say between a small number.

Whilst I like the idea of free speech, I would vote for locking this thread now.

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

I think this debate is rather absurd, especially in this case.

To bring it down to the point: making people SING and DANCE is not harming them. On the contrary, it may bring some light into their otherwise possibly dull lives.

Scambaiting is all about having fun with scammers. If you are so concerned about these scammers and their good friends, I suggest that you do not scambait.

I would have expected a discussion like this on life and death issues, but never about if or not to convince "innocent" mugu-friends to sing and dance.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:41 pm

Well said Wurz!

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:46 pm

Wurzgnubbel wrote:

I think this debate is rather absurd, especially in this case.

To bring it down to the point: making people SING and DANCE is not harming them. On the contrary, it may bring some light into their otherwise possibly dull lives.

Scambaiting is all about having fun with scammers. If you are so concerned about these scammers and their good friends, I suggest that you do not scambait.

I would have expected a discussion like this on life and death issues, but never about if or not to convince "innocent" mugu-friends to sing and dance.

No idea why my quotes have turned to poo, but oh well.

Firstly, my point is that to you a bit of a sing and dance is nothing. How do you that these guys are not thinking that finally something good has come to them for being good honest god-fearing nigerian citizens, instead of them becoming scammers instead? Then, one of us gives them another good kicking and it just reiterates to them that maybe they are just worthless. We shouldn't be doing that to innocent people. It doesn't matter if it is a dance. A slap. A sending on a safari. If it is an innocent person then instead of me saying why it is wrong, how about you come up with an argument that suggest why it is right. Please, I really look forward to having a good laugh.

Secondly, scam baiting is all about wasting as much of a scammers time so that he cannot use it screwing people over. Having fun is an added bonus. As i have said repeatedly, I have no issues screwing with scammers, and enjoy it immensely. However, I don't enjoy screwing with innocent peoples lives. If you got into this for that reason, then I'm pretty sure you'd be one of those people who approve of bullying in schools to. Again, show me anywhere where the first and foremost goal of scambaiting is to have fun at the expense of innocent people.

In fact, the more I think about it, instead of me having to argue about why involving innocents is wrong, lets turn this ethics discussion completely around. Lets see everyones argument about why innocents should be targeted? And please don't use the 'because they know the scammer'. I'm a lawyer, and know criminals and rehabilitated criminals, yet I sure as hell don't expect to be punished because of that.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:49 pm

Innocents targeted?

NEVER!!!!!!

Only scammers are targeted, the chaos theory leads who knows where?
We cannot help who the Lad involves, we cannot really prove they are innocent?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:49 pm

Ahh, good. I've now found one.

Quote:

Spaghetti alla Puttanesca Recipe

Ingredients:
3 tablespoons olive oil
2 garlic cloves, minced
2 ounces or more Kalamata black olives, pitted and chopped
1 teaspoon capers, coarsely chopped
1 large fresh tomato, peeled and coarsely chopped
4 or 5 anchovy fillets, coarsely chopped
1 pound spaghettini
1/3 cup finely chopped parsley
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon pepper, freshly ground
1 teaspoon crushed pepper flakes, optional

Directions:
Place the olive oil in a frying pan and add the minced garlic. When it is golden, add the olives, capers, tomato, and anchovy fillets. Stir well and heat through for about 6 minutes. Cook the pasta al dente and drain it. Place it in a warm bowl and add half the sauce. Toss well. Add the remaining sauce on top and sprinkle on the parsley with some salt and pepper to taste. Optional: Sprinkle red pepper flakes over the top before serving. Serve hot. There is no cheese used with this dish. It can also be eaten later, cold.
Serves 4 - 6.

Does anyone have any Marinara sauce recipes?

Or Elton John pictures?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:56 pm

SlowFreddie wrote:

Innocents targeted?

NEVER!!!!!!

Only scammers are targeted, the chaos theory leads who knows where?
We cannot help who the Lad involves, we cannot really prove they are innocent?

Nice point. So, you are therefore saying that they are all guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

And, why can we not help that. Can we not tell the scammer that we do not want them to do something? Last time I looked that was an option. If we refrain from telling him no, it doesn't diminish our responsibility for his actions

As an aside, why are my quotations not working. Ideas anyone?

Mod comment- No idea about your quotes. I retyped the code manually over your coding and it worked fine. I'm puzzled. TS

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:57 pm

Quote:

I was just showing an example of extented culpability.

Understood, at least, in the case of a drug addict and his dealers. We have no reason to assume extended culpability in this particular lad. I think this is an important point in the discussion. The scammer is considered mentally sane, can be held responsible for his actions, etc etc, unless proved otherwise. If this scammer was actually mentally retarded, we would have an entirely different discussion

Quote:

Fair point, though what happens if they agree because they are led to believe that something great could come of this. the scammer was actually being sincere, because he believed it too, and so effectively the baiter has become the scammer, just through an intermediary. If the scammer offered to p[ay them for it then I don't really have an issue to tell you the truth. But, I have seen where they are doing it because of the long term results which they genuinely believe exist. Just like sending money to a scammer for legal fees to release imaginary money.

It's impossible for us to assess, and thus to prevent, psychological damage to the choir, but then it is not our fault they got involved into this. This is the scammers fault, he is responsible for bringing them into this. He is also responsble for these "damages". As far as the financial compensation goes, we have no ground to assume the choir would not get paid.

Quote:

But, to throw an idea out there, what if a 3rd party got killed as part of a bait. Is it still just the scammers fault?

This was one of the hardpoint in YW's bait, though in the end no Mugu's were hurt.

Quote:

they scammer is literally now just an intermediary between the baiter scamming the church choir.

Not at all. the relation would be the same as the one between you, a building contracter, and the construction workers in a renovation of your house. Should the contractor put them in danger of physical harm (e.g. not abiding safety regulations) you would not be responsible for an accident (even if it occurred in your house)

Thanks for reading our arguments, anyway. Unlike some others, I do like a discussion like this.

[edit] Aha, we are going Socratian on this. I�ll turn your point around as well.

Quote:

Nice point. So, you are therefore saying that they are all guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

Which is interesting, because this

Quote:

But somehow people should be reminded that they have a responsibility not to stoop to the level of a scammer.

assumes on the other hand that a scammer can not be held responsible for his actions, unless proven otherwise.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 12:58 pm

Seven of Nine wrote:

Does anyone have any Marinara sauce recipes?

Or Elton John pictures?

Yes, and yes. Wink

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 1:03 pm

I must firmly agree with Gomer and Coronalight. The essence of this argument turns on whether the choir got paid or not. If they got paid, then there is nothing to debate. If they didn't get paid, they will have learned a valuable life skill - don't do the work unless you are sure of getting paid, and I think a great many of us would have suffered this experience and thus learned a life skill.
Personally I believe you could blindfold and handcuff SP, and he would still perform in an extraordinary manner. Keep your sympathies for those scammed of money,love, and dignity.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 02 Jan 2006 Posts: 2021

Every brilliant and original bait brings it lad huggers along with it, the huggers are normally new members with very little to zero knowledge off the scum we bait and strangely have no avatar Confused

Another thing i notice is the longer they stay around the less protective they are to the lads.

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