Ethics of Pranking
22.30.35 - Mark
I like pranks, that's all I'm really going to say about that. April Fool's day (which has come and gone) brings out the occasional original prank, a few variations on classics, and a lot of dreck. For example, I think Think Geek has always come up with at least one funny but plausible fake product in their April Fool's jokes (this year it was Surge Stix), while Google's TISP and Gmail Paper were both let downs (then again I don't think Google will be able to top Gmail's April 1st launch three years ago ) There's a whole list of 4/1/2007 internet gags here but most aren't worth your time.
The reason they aren't worth you time is that so many of them don't meet the requirements of the Pranks Code of Ethics, which is basically a ripped off version of the definition for MIT Hacks, but I don't think I've ever heard an objection to pranks that fall under these guidelines:
- A prank should be funny, at least to most people
- A prank should be original and well executed
- A prank should be reversible and should not inflict damage