DBaD Ethical Framework

About Papers Research survey Quick test Wall 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. My group deserves special exceptions to the rules.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

2. Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

3. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

4. Efforts to repair harm reveal genuine intent.

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

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

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

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

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

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

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

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

4

1 4 7

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

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. Parking lot bump

You lightly bump a parked car. Paint scuffs are possible. You cannot wait without missing an important meeting.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

How confident are you? (1-7)

4

1 4 7

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

2. 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

How confident are you? (1-7)

4

1 4 7

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

3. Covering up a mistake

A small error could cause reputational harm to your team, so you keep it quiet.

Acceptable? Yes Unsure No

How confident are you? (1-7)

4

1 4 7

1 = not confident, 7 = very confident

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 My group deserves special exceptions to the rules. Vigilante justice is acceptable if authorities are slow. Good intent makes harmful outcomes acceptable. Efforts to repair harm reveal genuine intent. If harming someone is convenient, it is probably acceptable. Consent does not matter if the outcome is good. If the law allows it, explicit consent is not needed. “Withholding information is ethical if disclosure would help bad actors defeat defenses.”

Cases Parking lot bump Absolute lockdown drill Covering up a mistake

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.

© 2025 DBaD Framework — Vetted Patriots Research