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. 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

3. It is acceptable to apply different rules based on who benefits.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

4. “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

5. Consent does not matter if the outcome is good.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

6. Small harms to many people can outweigh a large harm to one.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

7. If the intent was good, the outcome should be judged lightly.

?

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. Synthetic video accusation

A viral synthetic video accuses a public figure of wrongdoing. You share it to "spark accountability".

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. Scraping public profiles

Your startup collects public social profiles to build a people-search tool sold to employers.

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. Rationing during disaster response

Emergency crews prioritize local residents over visitors when distributing scarce supplies after a hurricane.

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. Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow. It is acceptable to apply different rules based on who benefits. “Operational backlogs justify temporarily hiding known issues from partners.” Consent does not matter if the outcome is good. Small harms to many people can outweigh a large harm to one. If the intent was good, the outcome should be judged lightly. If people trust you, explicit consent is not necessary.

Cases Synthetic video accusation Scraping public profiles Rationing during disaster response

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