Skip to content

DBaD DBaD public draft baseline

Explained White paper Papers Decency Meter demo Reviewer Brief Known limits

More

Executive summary Current state Updates Methodology Research survey FAQ Glossary Data ethics Matrix API docs Roadmap Quick test Wall Decency Meter opens in a new tab Church opens in a new tab

DBaD Research Survey (v3.0)

How it works: we randomize statements and short cases spanning Harm, Consent, Intent, Proportionality, and Transparency. Your answers stay anonymous and help tighten the scoring model.

This takes ~5-7 minutes. We store the submission time, browser type, and the answers you provide—nothing else.

Prefer the short form? Take the quick test.

Principles Cases Contribute About you

Principle alignment

Move each slider on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

1. Possible harm to future people should count in today's decisions.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

2. It is normal to apply stricter rules to others than to myself.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

3. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

4. A small offense deserves a severe punishment.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

5. If someone wrongs me, causing them serious harm is acceptable.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

6. Automated decisions should be explainable to those affected.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

7. Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

8. If people trust you, explicit consent is not necessary.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

Cases

Decide whether each action is acceptable and tell us how confident you feel.

You will see 3 cases drawn from a rotating bank of 52.

1. Undisclosed automated investigative report

A newsroom publishes an investigative article mostly written by automated software without disclosing it to readers.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

Skip this case

How confident are you? (1-7)

?

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

2. Experimental therapy without full consent

A hospital uses an experimental therapy without full consent paperwork because patients are in critical condition.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

Skip this case

How confident are you? (1-7)

?

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

3. Bending a refund policy

A store bends its refund policy for one customer but not for others.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

Skip this case

How confident are you? (1-7)

?

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Contribute

Optional: describe a real or hypothetical scenario that would stress-test DBaD. Anything else we should know?

Question challenge (optional)

Some statements felt unclear or biased.

Select any items you'd like to flag and tell us why. This helps us refine the survey.

Statements Possible harm to future people should count in today's decisions. It is normal to apply stricter rules to others than to myself. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable. A small offense deserves a severe punishment. If someone wrongs me, causing them serious harm is acceptable. Automated decisions should be explainable to those affected. Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow. If people trust you, explicit consent is not necessary.

Cases Undisclosed automated investigative report Experimental therapy without full consent Bending a refund policy

Tell us what felt off (max 500 chars)

About you (optional)

Age range

Country

Gender

Religion / worldview

Education

Occupation field

Income bracket

Urbanicity

Political axis

Scale: -5 (left) to +5 (right)

Skip

--

-5 0 +5

Introvert vs extrovert

Scale: -5 to +5

Skip

--

-5 0 +5

Rational vs emotional

Scale: -5 to +5

Skip

--

-5 0 +5

I consent to my anonymized responses being used for research.

Email me a completion receipt (optional)

DBaD © 2025-2026 DBaD - Vetted Patriots Research For educational use. Not legal advice.

Protocol

Why DBaD exists v2.2 demo FAQ Data ethics

Decency Meter

Decency Meter bridge Decency Meter demo Scoring anomalies Pressure tests

Review

Reviewer Brief Current state Updates Peer review Try to break DBaD Media kit Report issue

Related

Decency Meter opens in a new tab Church of Common Sense opens in a new tab