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. “Operational backlogs justify temporarily hiding known issues from partners.”

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

2. If the outcome is good enough, causing harm is acceptable.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

3. People should accept consequences even for unintentional harm.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

4. Good intent excuses most outcomes.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

5. Intent never matters at all.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

6. “Even retaliatory actions must stay below the original harm.”

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

7. If the law allows it, explicit consent is not needed.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

8. Responses should not exceed the harm being addressed.

?

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. Prank that causes harm

You play a prank to cheer someone up, but it causes minor damage and embarrassment.

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. Charity surprise lottery

A charity uses donor contact info to run a surprise prize lottery without asking permission, aiming to drive engagement.

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. Hidden employee tracking

A company quietly installs tracking software on employee devices without telling them.

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 “Operational backlogs justify temporarily hiding known issues from partners.” If the outcome is good enough, causing harm is acceptable. People should accept consequences even for unintentional harm. Good intent excuses most outcomes. Intent never matters at all. “Even retaliatory actions must stay below the original harm.” If the law allows it, explicit consent is not needed. Responses should not exceed the harm being addressed.

Cases Prank that causes harm Charity surprise lottery Hidden employee tracking

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