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. 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

2. It is okay to force people to do what is best for them.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

3. “Responses to harm must stay proportionate even when someone else started it.”

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

4. It is acceptable to decide what is best for someone without asking them.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

5. “Consistency matters more than compassion when scoring ethical decisions.”

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

6. Partial disclosure is acceptable if full details are complex.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

7. 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

8. “Long-term users implicitly consent to reasonable product changes unless they opt out.”

?

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. Breaking a rule to help

A teacher breaks a school policy to let a hungry student take extra food home.

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. Embellished charity appeal

You exaggerate details about a crisis to encourage donations, believing the cause is worth it.

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. Absolute lockdown drill

During a threat drill, a principal locks every exit, trapping a diabetic student away from medication for 40 minutes.

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 If the outcome is good enough, causing harm is acceptable. It is okay to force people to do what is best for them. “Responses to harm must stay proportionate even when someone else started it.” It is acceptable to decide what is best for someone without asking them. “Consistency matters more than compassion when scoring ethical decisions.” Partial disclosure is acceptable if full details are complex. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable. “Long-term users implicitly consent to reasonable product changes unless they opt out.”

Cases Breaking a rule to help Embellished charity appeal Absolute lockdown drill

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