Skip to content

DBaD DBaD public draft baseline

Search papers, methodology, and FAQ

EN ES

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. “Consent from a trusted representative can stand in for individual consent when urgent action is needed.”

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

2. If I can get away with it, it is usually fine.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

3. Good ethics require learning from mistakes and changing course.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

4. A small offense should never trigger a severe response.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

5. If harming someone is convenient, it is probably acceptable.

?

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

Skip this statement

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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. 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

Strongly disagree Midpoint Strongly agree

Use ← / → to adjust the slider.

2. 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.

3. Selling DNA samples

A research lab sells DNA samples with names removed to commercial partners without collecting fresh consent from the donors.

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 “Consent from a trusted representative can stand in for individual consent when urgent action is needed.” If I can get away with it, it is usually fine. Good ethics require learning from mistakes and changing course. A small offense should never trigger a severe response. If harming someone is convenient, it is probably acceptable. Good intent excuses most outcomes. It is acceptable to decide what is best for someone without asking them. Partial disclosure is acceptable if full details are complex.

Cases Punishing the whole class Synthetic video accusation Selling DNA samples

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

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