Stop flooding numbers for the love of god

This, all of this post right here!! I think we all do what we can. We all have a part to play to help save victims.
Would I love to be able to scambait all of the time and keep scammers busy all day every day? Sure! However I have a full-time job, a job with a schedule that is inconsistent from week to week, so i just do what i can when I can. I’m not super techy and don’t have a VM, but I can talk your ear off until you get tired of me and hang up on me. plus, inventing new characters to bait with is part of the fun for me.
Everybody keep playing your part. Do what you feel is most right for you, and we’ll save victims even if it’s just one at a time. :slight_smile:


I respectfully disagree. Scammer send out batch texts by the thousands of even 10s of thousands for Amazon, Norton, PayPal eBay, Microsoft… Etc
If we can shut a number down quickly by flooding, all of those victims will only reach a disconnected phone number.
Additionally, scammers who use toll free numbers pay for “each and every” inbound call. Flooding cost them A LOT of money (the only language they understand).
What do you believe is the best method? “Wasting their time” While they scam dozens of other people in the background?
But your point is well taken. I think a combination of ‘attacks’ work best. I have a tiny flooder (only 6 numbers) while going after them with actual calls from my phone (s) too.
While I agree that flooding a TextNow number has little effect, there are call-centers with several dozen ‘employees’ and flooding seems the best option, in my opinion.


In addition, people who can only make individual phone calls are the ones who can verify an alleged scam is an actual scam. They can say “a phone worker asked me to go to Target to get a gift card.” Or, “a phone worker asked me go to Anydesk on my laptop.” Before a computer science expert hits a site with a software program that makes hundreds of calls at once, you want foot soldiers to confirm they really are scammers. Every time we hit an innocent, it undermines our cause.


Great points, @josephnormandgrinnel and @SalCScambaits! One could argue that it is NOT an either-or proposition. Fighting scammers is fighting scammers. There is more than one way to fight scammers.

There are great points from various usernames in this thread concerning robo callflooding. @MKHNT mentions that number flooding is not to STOP ENTIRELY the scammers scamming people. That is a good point. Will ANY method of fighting scammers COMPLETELY STOP the scammers? Probably not. It does not seem realistic that so many people are baiting scammers verbally, or via Virtual Machines if applicable, that not ONE of the scammers will receive a call from a potential victim who is not baiting/harassing. If baiting was the only answer, why are scammers still using to some extent phone numbers to scam?

Aside from robo call flooding a scam phone number, in terms of people manually calling repeatedly to harass but not bait scammers if the scammers cannot block the numbers, it could HELP baiters because when the scammer finally gets someone on the phone who is trying to bait AFTER receiving enough manually dialed harassing calls the scammer can be strung along by the baiters more easily since the scammer is relieved that finally he or she is not being insulted/mocked immediately on the phone call. After receiving enough harassment from harassers manually dialing repeatedly, the scammer’s greed is activated when the baiter calls and the scammer hopes that THIS is the victim from which they will steal money even though the potential victim is the baiter.

I’ve noticed that the scam emails I receive nowadays do not have phone numbers in them any more as they are PHISHING emails that want you to click on the link. I’m guessing that at least to some extent this is because they got tired of baiters/harassers calling their phone numbers and also they got tired of robo callflooding to their phone numbers.


4 phone apps and a microphone … That’s how I do it​:joy::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: