This answer (now edited), and a comment to this question either refer to the asker directly or state that they "maybe" an "easy mark".

I feel that if a person came to the site for advise it is unfair to call them gullible, because they did notice a warning sign. Also calling them names may deter them from using the site again, since it is not pleasant.

Are there any good reasons for calling an asker an "easy mark"? Would an advice to exercise caution achieve the same goal (assuming the goal is to encourage them to look after themselves better in the future) without the negative connotations?

I mainly asking because I just saw this twice in a short time frame from different people, and just wanted a reality check.

1 Answer 1


While you are correct that you don't want to insult the person asking the question, or the person submitting an answer; I think that the phrase "easy mark" isn't a problem.

Sometimes the scam is an attempt to see if the person will fall for a basic scam, that way they can be targeted for a different more lucrative scam.

I think that a caution sometimes needs to be given to people when they read some of these questions or answers. We see questions where somebody asks if it is OK to engage with the scammer to: see where it goes; to try and keep the money; to collect more evidence; to scam the scammer. All of these are risky. They could lose their money. The authorizes may think they are part of the scam. The bank could close their account. One other is that the network may now think they are a potential source of income in the future.

Maybe more of the answers to these scam questions should include that idea that they now have identified themselves as a future source of money.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .