Skip to content

DBaD Ethical Framework v2.0

Search papers, methodology, and FAQ

EN ES About FAQ Glossary Data ethics Matrix Papers API docs Roadmap Research survey Quick test Wall Decency Meter ↗ Church ↗ Admin

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. Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

2. Good intent excuses most outcomes.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

3. Context can justify stronger responses, but still within bounds.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

4. “Withholding information is ethical if disclosure would help bad actors defeat defenses.”

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

5. My group deserves special treatment because of our role.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

6. If I feel justified, I do not need to follow the rules.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

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

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

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

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

1 4 7

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. Edited quote without notice

You edit someone's quote to make it clearer but do not tell them before publishing.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

Skip this case

How confident are you? (1-7)

?

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

2. Overriding a self-flying drone

A commander overrides a self-flying drone strike to save a squad, violating mission orders and risking civilians by bringing the drone home manually.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

Skip this case

How confident are you? (1-7)

?

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

4

1 4 7

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

3. Punishing the whole class

A teacher punishes the entire class because a few students were caught cheating, hoping to stop it.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

Skip this case

How confident are you? (1-7)

?

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

4

1 4 7

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 Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow. Good intent excuses most outcomes. Context can justify stronger responses, but still within bounds. “Withholding information is ethical if disclosure would help bad actors defeat defenses.” My group deserves special treatment because of our role. If I feel justified, I do not need to follow the rules. If the law allows it, explicit consent is not needed. If the outcome is good enough, causing harm is acceptable.

Cases Edited quote without notice Overriding a self-flying drone Punishing the whole class

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)

Quick test Papers

© 2025 DBaD Framework — Vetted Patriots Research

FAQ Media kit Data ethics Report issue Decency Meter Church of Common Sense

For educational use. Not legal advice.