Suppressive Person Defense League

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Ethics

Ethics

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Pretended PTS

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 19841; 2

(Also issued as an HCO PL, same date and title.)

Remimeo
Execs
MAA/EO Hat
HCO
Tech/Qual C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
Missionaires

C/S Series 118

PRETENDED PTS

(This data is also issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)

Refs:

HCOB 19 June 70 II C/S Series 8 CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

HCOB 3 May 80 PC INDICATORS

HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S

HCO PL 11 May 65 ETHICS OFFICER HAT

HCOB 9 May 77 II PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT

HCOB 28 Nov. 70 C/S Series 22  PSYCHOSIS

HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE

HUBBARD CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.

It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.

These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.

APPARENT SEQUENCE

Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:

a. They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.

b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.

c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.

d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).

In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.

What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.

We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which i such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.

This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.

HANDLING

In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.

Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S)

If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with Sec Checking by a competent Sec Checker. And such Sec Checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.

Instead of only Sec Checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose regarding the org?”

Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.

CAUTION

If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a Sec Check into his program.

ETHICS

None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended-PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.

SUMMARY

Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.

We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1984, 28 February). Pretended PTS. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology. (1991 ed., Vol. XII, pp. 547-549). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Pretended PTS

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 FEBRUARY 19841

(Also issued as an HCOB, same date and title)

Remimeo
Execs
MAA/EO Hat
HCO
Tech/Qual
C/Ses
Sec Checkers
De-PTSers
PTS Packs
SSOs
Missionaires

C/S Series 118

PRETENDED PTS

Cover-up and Justification of Black PR and Evil Purposes

(This data is being issued as an HCO PL so that executives know what to look for when somebody that they have requested be handled in Ethics hasn’t been handled.)

Refs:

HCOB 19 June 70 II C/S Series 8 CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION

HCOB 3 May 80 PC INDICATORS

HCOB 13 Oct. 82 C/S Series 116 ETHICS AND THE C/S

HCO PL 11 May 65 ETHICS OFFICER HAT

HCOB 9 May 77 II ExDn Series 24  PSYCHOSIS, MORE ABOUT

HCOB 28 Nov. 70 C/S Series 22 PSYCHOSIS

HCO Info Letter 2 Apr. 64 TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE

Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation

It is evident that asking directly for evil purposes as part of Sec Checking has been knocked out of use over the years by SPs.

It recently occurred that, in using Sec Checking to clean up several persons who had gotten into ethics trouble on their posts, a peculiar phenomenon and pattern came to light. The persons being handled had been asked for “overts” before and had “gotten them off” but would continue committing the overts. In each case they had blamed their difficulty on having been the effect of false data and black PR fed them by bad hats long since detected and removed from the area. However, these particular cases did not straighten out with de-PTSing actions.

These persons were then asked directly for evil purposes and this action finally got to the root of the matter.

APPARENT SEQUENCE

Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:

a. They “get off overts” but then continue committing them.

b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having “gone effect of others’ black PR or false data.” In other words, the person appears to be PTS.

c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that’s the end of the investigation.

d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).

In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.

What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.

We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn’t work because the staff wasn’t handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.

This sequence shows the exact “failure” to handle people in RPFs, etc.

HANDLING

In handling a PTS, the C/S must monitor the person’s progress closely. This means inspection of all interviews and session worksheets, observing the results of each PTS handling action, his change of position (or lack of) on the Chart of Human Evaluation as evident from the pc folder and so forth.

Also, it is important that the Ethics Officer advise the D of P when a staff or public person is undergoing an ethics or justice action so that this can be noted in the person’s pc folder. In this way, the C/S can also find out if the pc has landed in ethics trouble. (Ref: HCOB 13 Oct. 82, C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S) If the person is not making change, or repeatedly slipping into further out-ethics behavior, the C/S must recognize this. It is, possibly, the (a) to (d) sequence above in action. If the C/S suspects this to be the case, his action is to begin to handle the case with sec checking by a competent sec checker. And such sec checking must include questions about the person’s purposes and intentions.

Instead of only sec checking on, for example, “Have you committed an overt on the org?” one would also ask, “Have you had an evil purpose  regarding the org?”

Handled standardly in this way, the person can be expected to experience tremendous relief and case change.

CAUTION

If a person is progressing well on a de-PTSing program (such as PTS interview, PTS RD, Suppressed Person RD), is making change, keeping his personal ethics in and moving up the Chart of Human Evaluation, then it would be a C/S error to suddenly interject a sec check into his program.

ETHICS

None of this sets aside standard ethics and justice procedures. Such a person as would be found with a pretended PTS situation is quite likely already under some justice action, and in fact doesn’t deserve immediate handling other than what HCO deals out.

SUMMARY

Some executives have gotten in the frame of mind that it is a waste of time trying to handle a bad hat. It is true the bad hat probably doesn’t deserve to be handled but it is nevertheless true that we do have the tools to handle one.

We’re not out to handle the insane, but whether we like it or not we live in a pretty insane civilization. Any data which handles that or amplifies it technically or solves it is of course extremely vital.

L. Ron Hubbard
Founder

Notes

  1. Document studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.) ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Auditors Who Miss Withholds, Penalty

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 28 NOVEMBER 19781

Remimeo

(Also issued as HCO PL 28 Nov. 78)

AUDITORS WHO MISS WITHHOLDS, PENALTY

As one of the most destructive things an auditor can do is miss a withhold on a pc, and as missing a withhold stems exactly from being inexpert, out-metering, out-TRs or mutual out-ruds, and as pcs and staff can blow and cause a great deal of trouble when withholds have been missed in Sec Checking or Confessionals, the penalty for missing a withhold on a pc is as follows:

Comm Ev, and if found guilty, suspension of certificates until retrained.

This penalty has been issued in the past but was omitted in modern compilations.

It is no light thing to mess up Sec Checking on a pc.

Pcs who blow their auditing in orgs, staff who want to leave, out-ethics mush­rooming up in an org can usually be traced to one or more auditors who miss withholds, either by their own out-tech or mutual ruds.

It is highly possible that the reason husband/wife teams often fail is that they have mutual out-ruds or that they miss withholds on each other.

This is no light thing. If this order is not vigorously enforced, lack of enforce­ment will end up destroying lives, just as it does in the wog world every day.

So, get your ethics presence up and make sure that Sec Checking is done correctly, without error and with no missed withholds.

This HCOB/PL is retroactive for a decade.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. R. (1978, 28 November). Auditors Who Miss Withholds, Penalty. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. XI. p. 360). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Notes

  1. Document studied on the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course. ↩

by Leave a Comment

HCOB: Ethics Repair List

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
SaintHill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 19781

ISSUE II

C/Ses
Tech/Qual
Auditors
HCOs

ETHICS REPAIR LIST

 

PC’S NAME: ____________________DATE:____________________

AUDITOR:____________________

PREREQUISITE

1. A complete Drug Rundown.

2. A C/S 53RL done to F/Ning list. (Done per HCOB 30 Oct 78, C/S SERIES 53, USE OF.

WITHOUT THE ABOVE 2 FULLY DONE THIS REPAIR LIST WILL FAIL!

TRIPLE VS QUAD

Determine whether the pc is a Triple or Quad Flow pc before starting this list, as you must not start running Flow 0 on a Triple Flow pc.

DO NOT RUN ANY FLOW THAT DOES NOT READ. Check each flow for read before running it.

EXTERIOR

Nothing is more likely to exteriorize a pc than this list. If the pc goes exterior during this list, do not audit past it, gently end off the session.

The last question on the list is there to detect exteriorization. If the pc went exterior on this action his Int must be checked, and if out, fully handled before continuing this list or any other auditing.

If the pc has a big win, end off the session and let him have his win. When he is off the win, the list is then resumed. In all cases the Ethics Repair List is completed through to the end of the list.

INSTRUCTIONS

This list is assessed and handled by Method 3.

All questions that read are taken to F/N or E/S to F/N. On some questions an additional handling is indicated after the question. Withholds are handled with Missed Withhold procedure, per HCOB 11 Aug 78 I, RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND PATTER.

00. Fly Ruds to F/N.

0. R-Factor: “We are going to do the Ethics Repair List. I’m here to help you. There isn’t anything so bad that it can’t be undone, or forgiven. Is there any reason not to begin?”

 

– 2 –

HCOB 5.11.78 II

1.F1. HAS THE WORK YOU’VE DONE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED?
F2. HAVE YOU BEEN UNAPPRECIATIVE OF THE WORK OF ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS BEEN UNAPPRECIATIVE OF THE WORK OF OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU BEEN UNAPPRECIATIVE OF YOUR OWN WORK?

2. F1. HAS THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE BEEN INVALIDATED?
F2. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED THE WORK OF ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS INVALIDATED THE WORK OF OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED YOUR OWN WORK?

3. F1. HAS THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE BEEN SUPPRESSED?
F2. HAVE YOU SUPPRESSED THE WORK ANOTHER HAS DONE?
F3. HAVE OTHERS SUPPRESSED THE WORK OTHERS HAVE DONE?
F0. HAVE YOU SUPPRESSED THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE?

4. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN WRONGED?
F2. HAVE YOU WRONGED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS WRONGED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU WRONGED YOURSELF?

5. F1. HAS THERE BEEN AN INJUSTICE?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER AN INJUSTICE?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS AN INJUSTICE?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF AN INJUSTICE?

6. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED?
F2. HAVE YOU FALSELY ACCUSED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS FALSELY ACCUSED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU FALSELY ACCUSED YOURSELF?

7. F1. HAS SOMEONE TREATED YOU UNFAIRLY?
F2. HAVE YOU TREATED ANOTHER UNFAIRLY?
F3. HAVE OTHERS TREATED OTHERS UNFAIRLY?
F0. HAVE YOU TREATED YOURSELF UNFAIRLY?

8. F1. DO YOU KEEP GETTING BLAMED FOR THINGS?
F2. HAVE YOU BLAMED ANOTHER FOR. SOMETHING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS BLAMED OTHERS FOR THINGS?
F0. DO YOU BLAME YOURSELF FOR THINGS?

9. F1. DO YOU FEEL YOU ARE ALWAYS IN TROUBLE?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO FEEL HE/SHE WAS ALWAYS IN TROUBLE?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO FEEL THEY WERE ALWAYS IN TROUBLE?
F0. HAVE YOU MADE YOURSELF FEEL YOU WERE ALWAYS IN TROUBLE?

10. F1. HAVE YOUR. INTENTIONS BEEN INVALIDATED?
F2. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED ANOTHER’S INTENTIONS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS INVALIDATED OTHERS’ INTENTIONS?
F0. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED YOUR OWN INTENTIONS?

– 3 –

HCOB 5.11.78 II

11. F1. DO YOU FEEL THERE IS NO JUSTICE?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO FEEL TnRE IS NO JUSTICE?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO FEEL THERE IS NO JUSTICE?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO FEEL THERE IS NO JUSTICE?

12.F1. ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING INTO TROUBLE?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING INTO TROUBLE?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING INTO TROUBLE?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING INTO TROUBLE?

13. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN THIRD PARTIED?
F2. HAVE YOU THIRD PARTIED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS THIRD PARTIED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO BE THIRD PARTIED?

14. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN PUNISHED FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T DO?
F2. HAVE YOU PUNISHED ANOTHER FOR SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO?
F3. HAVE OTHERS PUNISHED OTHERS FOR SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T DO?
F0. HAVE YOU PUNISHED YOURSELF FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T DO?

15. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN HARRASSED BY SOMEONE?
F2. HAVE YOU HARRASSED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS HARRASSED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU HARRASSED YOURSELF?

16. F1. HAVE YOU FELT BETRAYED BY SOMEONE?
P. HAS SOMEONE FELT BETRAYED BY YOU?
F3. HAVE OTHERS FELT BETRAYED BY OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU FELT YOU BETRAYED YOURSELF?

17. F1. DO YOU FEEL YOU’VE BEEN CRITICIZED?
F2. HAVE YOU MADE ANOTHER FEEL CRITICIZED?
F3. HAVE OTHERS MADE OTHERS FEEL CRITICIZED?
F0. HAVE YOU BEEN CRITICAL OF YOURSELF?

18. F1. HAS ANYONE REFUSED TO LET YOU GET A W/H OFF?
F2. HAVE YOU REFUSED TO LET SOMEONE GET A W/H OFF?
F3. HAVE OTHERS REFUSED TO LET OTHERS GET W/Hs OFF?
F0. HAVE YOU REFUSED TO LET YOURSELF GET A W/H OFF?

18A. F1. HAS ANYONE INSISTED YOU STILL HAD A W/H AFTER YOU HAD ALREADY GOTTEN IT OFF?
F2. HAVE YOU INSISTED SOMEONE STILL HAD A W/H AFTER HE/SHE HAD GOTTEN IT OFF?
F3. HAVE OTHERS INSISTED OTHERS STILL HAD W/Hs AFTER THEY HAD GOTTEN THEM OFF?
F0. HAVE YOU INSISTED THAT YOU STILL HAD A W/H AFTER YOU HAD GOTTEN IT OFF?

-4-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

18B. F1. HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU NOT TO GET OFF /OUR WITHHOLDS?
(Pull the withholds he didn’t or couldn’t get off.)
F2. HAVE YOU TOLD SOMEBODY NOT TO GET OFF HIS WITHHOLDS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS TOLD OTHERS NOT TO GET OFF THEIR WITHHOLDS?
(E/S to F/N.)
F0. HAVE YOU DECIDED NOT TO GET OFF YOUR WITHHOLDS?
(Pull any withholds he hasn’t gotten off.)

18C. F1. HAVE YOU AGREED NOT TO WRITE DOWN WITHHOLDS?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F2. HAVE YOU MADE ANOTHER AGREE NOT TO WRITE DOWN YOUR WITHHOLDS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS GOTTEN OTHERS TO AGREE NOT TO WRITE DOWN THEIR WITHHOLDS?
(E/S to F/N.)
F0. HAVE YOU EVER NOT WRITTEN DOWN YOUR OWN WITHHOLDS?
(Pull the withholds he hasn’t written down.)

19. F1. HAS ANOTHER PRODUCED AN OVERT PRODUCT?
F2. HAVE YOU PRODUCED ANY OVERT PRODUCT?
F3. HAVE OTHERS PRODUCED OVERT PRODUCTS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO PRODUCE ANY OVERT PRODUCT?

20. F1. HAVE YOU FELT DEGRADED BY AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO FEEL DEGRADED BY AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO FEEL DEGRADED BY ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTIONS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO FEEL DEGRADED BY AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?

21. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ASSIGNED A WRONG CONDITION?
F2. HAVE YOU ASSIGNED ANOTHER A WRONG CONDITION?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ASSIGNED OTHERS A WRONG CONDITION?
F0. HAVE YOU ASSIGNED YOURSELF A WRONG CONDITION?

22. F1. WERE CONDITIONS FORMULAS NEVER COMPLETED?
F2. HAVE YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM COMPLETING A CONDITION FORMULA?
F3. HAVE OTHERS PREVENTED OTHERS FROM COMPLETING CONDITIONS FORMULAS?
F0. HAVE YOU PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM COMPLETING A CONDITION FORMULA?

22A. F1. DID YOU NEVER TRY TO GET GET OF THE CONDITION YOU WERE IN?
F2. DID ANOTHER NEVER TRY TO GET OUT OF THE CONDITION HE/SHE WAS IN?
F3. DID OTHERS NEVER TRY TO GET OUT OF THE CONDITION THEY WERE IN?
F0. DID YOU NEVER TRY TO GET YOURSELF OUT OF A CONDITION?

-5-

5.11.78 II

23. F1. HAS ANOTHER FALSELY REPORTED HIS CONDITION TO YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU FALSELY REPORTED YOUR CONDITION?
(Handle as a withhold. E/S to F/N.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS FALSELY REPORTED THEIR CONDITIONS TO OTHERS?
F0. DID YOU GIVE YOURSELF A FALSE REPORT ON YOUR CONDITION?

24. F1. HAS ANOTHER NOT REPORTED HIS STAT?
F2. HAVE YOU NOT REPORTED YOUR STAT?
F3. HAVE OTHERS NOT REPORTED THEIR STATS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF NOT TO REPORT YOUR STAT?

25. F1. HAS ANOTHER FALSE REPORTED HIS STAT?
F2. HAVE YOU FALSE REPORTED YOUR STAT?
F3. HAVE OTHERS FALSE REPORTED THEIR STATS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO FALSE REPORT YOUR STAT?

26. F1. HAS THERE BEEN AN OUT-GRADIENT ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F2. HAVE YOU TAKEN AN OUT-GRADIENT ACTION ON ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS TAKEN OUT-GRADIENT ACTIONS ON OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU TAKEN AN OUT-GRADIENT ACTION ON YOURSELF?

27. F1. HAVE YOU HAD AN UNJUST COURT OF ETHICS?
F2. HAVE YOU BEEN UNJUST TO ANOTHER REGARDING A COURT OF ETHICS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS BEEN UNJUST TO OTHERS REGARDING COURTS OF ETHICS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF AN INJUSTICE REGARDING A COURT OF ETHICS?

28. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN UNJUSTLY COMM EVED?
F2. HAVE YOU UNJUSTLY COMM EVED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS UNJUSTLY COMM EVED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO BE UNJUSTLY COMM EVED?

29. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN AN UNFAIR TRIAL?
F2. HAVE YOU GIVEN ANOTHER AN UNFAIR TRIAL?
(E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS GIVEN OTHERS UNFAIR TRIALS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO BE GIVEN AN UNFAIR TRIAL?

30. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN THREATENED WITH. PUNISHMENT OR JUSTICE ACTIONS?
F2. HAVE YOU THREATENED ANOTHER WITH PUNISHMENT OR JUSTICE ACTIONS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS THREATENED OTHERS WITH PUNISHMENT OR JUSTICE ACTIONS?
F0. HAVE YOU THREATENED YOURSELF WITH PUNISHMENT OR JUSTICE ACTIONS?

-6-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

31. F1. HAS THERE BEEN UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE PUNISHMENT?
F2. HAVE YOU UNJUSTLY OR UNREASONABLY PUNISHED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS UNJUSTLY OR UNREASONABLY PUNISHED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU UNJUSTLY OR UNREASONABLY PUNISHED YOURSELF?

32. F1. HAVE YOU WITHHELD ANYTHING FROM A COURT OR COMM EV?
F2. HAS ANOTHER WITHHELD ANYTHING FROM A COURT OR COMM EV?
F3. HAVE OTHERS WITHHELD ANYTHING FROM A COURT OR COMM EV?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO WITHHOLD FROM A COURT’ OR COMM EV?

33. F1. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING FOR WHICH YOU COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A COURT OR COMM EV?
F2. HAS ANOTHER DONE SOMETHING FOR WHICH HE/SHE COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A COURT OR COMM EV?
F3. HAVE OTHERS DONE SOMETHING FOR WHICH THEY COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A COURT OR COMM EV?
F0. HAVE TOO DONE SOMETHING TO YOURSELF FOR WHICH YOU COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A COURT OR COMM EV?

33A. F1. HAVE YOU WITHHELD ANYTHING FOR WHICH YOU COULD HAVE SEEN IMPRISONED?
F2. HAS ANOTHER WITHHELD ANYTHING FOR WHICH BE/SHE COULD HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED?
F3. HAVE OTHERS WITHHELD THINGS FOE WHICH THEY COULD HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO WITHHOLD SOMETHING FOR WHICH YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD BE IMPRISONED?

34. F1. ARE YOU CONCERNED OR WORRIED ABOUT RPF ASSIGNMENTS?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER CONCERN OR WORRY ABOUT AN INCORRECT RPF ASSIGNMENT?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS CONCERN OR WORRY ABOUT AN INCORRECT RPF ASSIGNMENT?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF CONCERN OR WORRY ABOUT AN INCORRECT RPF ASSIGNMENT?

35. F1. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING FOR WHICH YOU COULD HAVE BEEN RPFed?
F2. HAS ANOTHER DONE SOMETHING FOR WHICH HE/SHE COULD HAVE BEEN RPFed?
F3. HAVE OTHERS DONE SOMETHING FOR WHICH THEY COULD HAVE BEEN RPFed?
F0. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING TO TeunsTAF FOR WHICH YOU COULD HAVE BEEN RFFed?

36. F1. HAS THERE BEEN AN UNNECESSARY ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F2. HAVE YOU TAKEN AN UNNECESSARY ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION ON ANOTHER?
(E/S to F/N. Handle as a WIN if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS TAKEN UNNECESSARY ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTIONS ON OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY UNNECESSARY ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION ON YOURSELF?

-7-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

37. F1. HAVE YOU WITHHELD ANYTHING FROM AN ETHICS OFFICER?
F2. HAS ANOTHM WITHHELD ANYTHING FROM AN ETHICS OFFICER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS WITHHELD ANYTHING FROM AN ETHICS OFFICER?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO WITHHOLD ANYTHING FROM AN ETHICS OFFICER?

38. F1. ARE YOU WITHHOLDING ANYTHING FOR WHICH YOU COULD BE PUNISHED?
F2. IS ANOTHER WITHHOLDING ANYTHING FOR WHICH HE/SHE COULD BE PUNISHED?
F3. ARE OTHERS WITHHOLDING ANYTHING FOR WHICH THEY COULD BE PUNISHED?
F0. ARE YOU CAUSING YOURSELF TO WITHHOLD ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE PUNISHED?

39. F1. HAS SOMEONE PREVENTED YOU FROM GETTING HATTED OR TRAINED?
F2. HAVE YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM GETTING HATTED OR TRAINED?
F3. HAVE OTHERS PREVENTED OTHERS FROM GETTING HATTED OR TRAINED?
F0. HAVE YOU PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM GETTING HATTED OR TRAINED?

40. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN PREVENTED FROM DOING YOUR POST (OR JOB)?
F2. HAVE YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM DOING HIS POST (OR JOB)?
(Handle as a withhold, if applicable. E/S to F/N.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS PREVENTED OTHERS. FROM DOING THEIR POSTS (OR JOBS)?
F0. HAVE YOU PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM DOING YOUR POST (OR JOB)?

41. F1. HAS ANOTHER TRIED TO GRAB YOUR POST (OR JOB)?
F2. HAVE YOU TRIED TO GRAB ANOTHER’S POST (OR JOB)?
(Handle as a withhold if applicable. E/S to F/N.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS TRIED TO GRAB OTHERS’ POSTS (OR JOBS)?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOUR POST (OR JOB) TO BE GRABBED BY ANOTHER?

42. F1. DO YOU WANT YOUR POST?
(If “Yes”, acknowledge. If “No”, find out if there was a time when he/she did want the post, and someone invalidated this and clean that up. Otherwise, ask “Why don’t you want your post?” and 2 Way comm it to F/N.)
(If “No” on Fl, ask F2, F3, F0.)
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER NOT TO WANT HIS/HER POST?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS NOT TO WANT THEIR POSTS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF NOT TO WANT YOUR POST?

43. F1. HAVE YOU FELT PTS TO YOUR AREA?
(2 Way comm and handle as needed.)
F2. HAVE YOU MADE ANOTHER FEEL PTS TO HIS/HER AREA?
(E/S to F/N.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS MADE OTHERS FEEL PTS TO THEIR AREAS?

-8-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

F0. HAVE YOU MADE YOURSELF FEEL PTS TO YOUR AREA?
(E/S to F/N.)

43A. F1. DO YOU HAVE ANY WITHHOLD ABOUT YOUR POST OR AREA?
F2. DOES ANOTHER HAVE ANY WITHHOLD ABOUT HIS POST OR AREA?
F3. DO OTHERS HAVE WITHHOLDS ABOUT THEIR POSTS OR AREAS?
F0. ARE YOU CAUSING YOURSELF TO HAVE WITHHOLDS ABOUT YOUR POST OR AREA?

44. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. DID ANOTHER COMMIT OVERTS SO HE/SHE WOULD BE TAKEN OFF POST?
F2. DID YOU COMMIT OVERTS SO YOU WOULD BE TAKEN OFF POST?
F3. DID OTHERS COMMIT OVERTS SO THEY WOULD BE TAKEN OFF POST?
F0. DID YOU COMMIT OVERTS ON YOURSELF SO YOU WOULD BE TAKEN OFF POST?

45. F1. DO YOU HAVE TROUBLE COMPLETING CYCLES OF ACTION?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO HAVE TROUBLE COMPLETING CYCLES OF ACTION?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO HAVE. TROUBLE COMPLETING CYCLES OF ACTION?
F0. HAVE YOU PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM COMPLETING CYCLES OF ACTION?

46. F1. HAVE YOUR GAINS BEEN INVALIDATED?
F2. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED ANOTHER’S GAINS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS INVALIDATED OTHERS’ GAINS?
F0. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED YOUR OWN GAINS?

47. F1. HAVE RESULTS YOU HAVE ACHIEVED BEEN INVALIDATED?
F2. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED THE RESULTS ANOTHER ACHIEVED?
F3. HAVE OTHERS INVALIDATED THE RESULTS OTHERS ACHIEVED?
F0. HAVE YOU INVALIDATED THE RESULTS YOU HAVE ACHIEVED?

48. F1. WAS SOMEONE UPSET WHEN YOU’D HAD A WIN?
F2. WERE YOU UPSET WHEN SOMEONE ELSE HAD A WIN?
F3. WERE OTHERS UPSET WHEN OTHERS HAD WINS?
F0. WERE YOU UPSET WITH A WIN YOU’D HAD?

49. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN MADE TO USE EQUIPMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN’T KNOW HOW IT WORKED?
(Indicate it. E/S to F/N. Handle any MUs.)
F2. HAVE YOU MADE ANOTHER USE EQUIPMENT EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN’T KNOW HOW IT WORKED?
(E/S to F/N, or handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS MADE OTHERS USE EQUIPMENT EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN’T KNOW HOW IT WORKED?
(E/S to F/N.)
F0. HAVE YOU USED EQUIPMENT WHILE PREVENTING YOURSELF FROM FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKED?
(Handle as a withhold. Then handle any MUs.)

-9-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

50. F1. ARE YOU MIS-USING OR BREAKING EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU’VE BEEN PREVENTED FROM FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKS?
(E/S to F/N. Handle any MUs.)
F2. IS ANOTHER MIS-USING OR BREAKING EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU’VE PREVENTED HIM FROM FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKS?
(E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. ARE OTHERS MIS-USING OR BREAKING EQUIPMENT BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE PREVENTED THEM FROM FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKS?
F0. HAVE YOU MIS-USED OR BROKEN YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU PREVENTED YOURSELF FROM FINDING OUT HOW IT WORKS?

51. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER MIS-USED OR BROKEN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE HE DIDN’T LIKE IT?
F2. HAVE YOU MIS-USED OR BROKEN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T LIKE IT?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS MIS-USED OR BROKEN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T LIKE IT?
F0. HAVE YOU MIS-USED OR BROKEN YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T LIKE IT?

52. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF STEALING?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF STEALING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF STEALING?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF STEALING?

53. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER STOLEN FROM YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU STOLEN ANYTHING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS STOLEN FROM OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU STOLEN FROM YOURSELF?

54. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF GIVING FALSE INFORMATION?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF GIVING FALSE INFORMATION?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF GIVING FALSE INFORMATION?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF GIVING FALSE INFORMATION?

55. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER GIVEN YOU FALSE INFORMATION?
F2. HAVE YOU GIVEN ANOTHER FALSE INFORMATION?
F3. HAVE OTHERS GIVEN OTHERS FALSE INFORMATION?
F0. HAVE YOU GIVEN YOURSELF FALSE INFORMATION?

56. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF OUT-2D (SEXUAL HIS-PRACTICES)?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO BE ACCUSED OF OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?
(Handle as a TR/H if applicable.)

-10-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

57. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER ENGAGED YOU IN OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?
F2. HAVE YOU ENGAGED ANOTHER IN OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ENGAGED OTHERS IN OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO ENGAGE IN OUT-2D (SEXUAL MIS-PRACTICES)?

58. F1. HAVE YOU SEEN ACCUSED OF A CRIME?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF A CRIME?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF CRIMES?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF A CRIME?

59. (Assess Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER COMMITTED ANY CRIMES AGAINST YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU COMMITTED ANY CRIMES?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST YOURSELF?

60. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER DONE SOMETHING TO YOU HE WAS AFRAID THE POLICE OR AUTHORITIES WOULD FIND OUT?
F2. HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANYTHING TO ANOTHER YOU WERE AFRAID THE POLICE OR AUTHORITIES WOULD FIND OUT?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS DONE SOMETHING TO OTHERS THEY WERE AFRAID THE POLICE OR AUTHORITIES WOULD FIND OUT?
F0. HAVE YOU DONE SOMETHING TO YOURSELF YOU WERE AFRAID THE POLICE OR AUTHORITIES WOULD FIND OUT?
(Handle as a withhold.)

61. F1. ARE YOU WANTED BY THE POLICE OR SOME AUTHORITIES?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO BE WANTED BY THE POLICE OR SOME AUTHORITIES?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO BE WANTED BY THE POLICE OR SOME AUTHORITIES?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO BE WANTED BY THE POLICE OR SOME AUTHORITIES?

62. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF LYING ABOUT SOMETHING?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF LYING ABOUT SOMETHING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF LYING ABOUT SOMETHING?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF LYING ABOUT SOMETHING?

63. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER LIED TO YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU LIED TO ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS LIED TO OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU LIED TO YOURSELF?

-11-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

64. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF CHEATING?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF CHEATING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF CHEATING?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF CHEATING?

65. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER EVER CHEATED YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU EVER CHEATED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS EVER CHEATED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU EVER CHEATED YOURSELF?

66. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAVE YOU BEEN “CONNED” INTO SOMETHING?
F2. HAVE YOU “CONNED” ANOTHER INTO SOMETHING?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS “CONNED” OTHERS INTO SOMETHING?
F0. HAVE YOU “CONNED” YOURSELF INTO SOMETHING?

67. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF HARMING OR INJURING SOMEONE?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF HARMING OR INJURING SOMEONE?
(E/S to F/N. Handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF HARMING OR INJURING SOMEONE?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF HARMING OR INJURING SOMEONE?

68. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAVE YOU BEEN HARMED OR INJURED BY SOMEONE?
F2. HAVE YOU HARMED OR INJURED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS HARMED OR INJURED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU HARMED OR INJURED YOURSELF?

69. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN ACCUSED OF ATTACKING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING?
F2. HAVE YOU ACCUSED ANOTHER OF ATTACKING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ACCUSED OTHERS OF ATTACKING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING?
F0. HAVE YOU ACCUSED YOURSELF OF ATTACKING SOMEONE OR SOMETHING?

70. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER ATTACKED YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU ATTACKED ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS ATTACKED OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU ATTACKED YOURSELF?

71. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANYONE EVER BEEN DETERMINED TO DO YOU IN?

-12-

HCOB 5.11,78 II

F2. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DETERMINED TO DO ANOTHER IN?
F3. HAVE OTHERS BEEN DETERMINED TO DO OTHERS IN?
F0. HAVE YOU BEEN DETERMINED TO DO YOURSELF IN?

72. F1. IS THERE ANY VENGEANCE YOU HAVE NOT FULLY ENDED CYCLE ON?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO NOT FULLY END CYCLE ON A VENGEANCE?
F3 HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO NOT FULLY END CYCLE ON A VENGEANCE?
F0. HAVE YOU DECIDED TO HOLD ONTO A VENGEANCE?
(Handle as a withhold E/S to F/N.)

73. (Assess both Flows I and 2.)

F1. HAS SOMEBODY ALLOWED YOU TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR SOMETHING THEY DID?
F2. HAVE YOU ALLOWED SOMEBODY TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR SOMETHING YOU DID?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS ALLOWED OTHERS TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR SOMETHING THEY DID?
F0. HAVE YOU BLAMED YOURSELF FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T DO?

74. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER BEEN BIASED OR PREJUDICED AGAINST YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU BEEN BIASED OR PREJUDICED AGAINST ANOTHER?
(E/S to F/N. Or handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS BEEN BIASED OR PREJUDICED AGAINST OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED BIAS OR PREJUDICE AGAINST YOURSELF?

75. (Assess both Flaws 1 and 2.)

F1. HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY?
F2. HAVE YOU TREATED ANOTHER UNFAIRLY?
(E/S to F/N. Or handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS TREATED OTHERS UNFAIRLY?
F0. HAVE YOU TREATED YOURSELF UNFAIRLY?

76. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN CONVINCED YOU WERE NOT OUT-ETHICS?
F2. HAVE YOU CONVINCED ANOTHER HE/SHE WAS NOT OUT-ETHICS?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CONVINCED OTHERS THEY WERE NOT OUT-ETHICS?
F0. HAVE YOU CONVINCED YOURSELF YOU WERE NOT OUT-ETHICS?

77. F1. HAS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU ETHICS OR JUSTICE DIDN’T WORK?
F2. HAVE YOU TOLD SOMEONE ETHICS OR JUSTICE DIDN’T WORK?
F3. HAVE OTHERS TOLD OTHERS ETHICS OR JUSTICE DIDN’T WORK?
F0. HAVE YOU TOLD YOURSELF ETHICS OR JUSTICE DIDN’T WORK?

78. F1. HAS ETHICS OR JUSTICE BEEN A PROBLEM TO YOU?
F2. HAVE YOU MADE ETHICS OR JUSTICE A PROBLEM TO ANOTHER?

-13-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

F3. HAVE OTHERS MADE ETHICS OR JUSTICE A PROBLEM TO OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU MADE ETHICS OR JUSTICE A PROBLEM TO YOURSELF?

79. F1. ON ETHICS OR JUSTICE, HAS SOMEBODY EVALUATED FOR YOU?
F2. ON ETHICS OR JUSTICE, HAVE YOU EVALUATED FOR ANOTHER?
F3. ON ETHICS OR JUSTICE, HAVE OTHERS EVALUATED FOR OTHERS?
F0. ON ETHICS OR JUSTICE, HAVE YOU EVALUATED FOR YOURSELF?

80. F1. HAD YOU ALREADY CORRECTED THE ETHICS OR JUSTICE SITUATION?
(Indicate it. Rehab if needed.)
F2. HAVE YOU MADE ANOTHER APPLY ETHICS OR JUSTICE AFTER THE SITUATION WAS CORRECTED?
F3. HAVE OTHERS MADE OTHERS APPLY ETHICS OR JUSTICE AFTER THE SITUATION WAS CORRECTED?
F0. HAVE YOU MADE YOURSELF APPLY ETHICS OR JUSTICE AFTER THE SITUATION WAS CORRECTED?

81. F1. HAVE YOU BEEN CRITICIZED BECAUSE OF AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F2. HAVE YOU BEEN CRITICAL OF ANOTHER BECAUSE OF AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F3. HAVE OTHERS BEEN CRITICAL OF OTHERS BECAUSE OF AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?
F0. HAVE YOU BEEN CRITICAL OF YOURSELF BECAUSE OF AN ETHICS OR JUSTICE ACTION?

82. F1. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU DID BECAUSE YOU HAD NO CHOICE?
(Get what. Handle as a W/H if applicable. E/S to F/N.)
F2. DID YOU CAUSE ANOTHER TO DO SOMETHING WHEN HE/SHE HAD NO CHOICE?
F3. DID OTHERS CAUSE OTHERS TO DO SOMETHING WHEN THEY HAD NO CHOICE?
F0. DID YOU CAUSE YOURSELF TO DO SOMETHING WHEN YOU HAD NO CHOICE?

83. F1. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T WANT TO DO, BUT IT JUST HAPPENED?
(Handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F2. IS THERE SOMETHING ANOTHER DIDN’T WANT TO DO, BUT IT JUST HAPPENED?
F3. IS THERE SOMETHING OTHERS DIDN’T WANT TO DO, BUT IT JUST HAPPENED?
(E/S to F/N.)
F0. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU TRIED TO KEEP YOURSELF FROM DOING, BUT IT JUST HAPPENED?
(Handle as a W/H if applicable.)

84. F1. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU KNEW WASN’T RIGHT, BUT SOMEONE MADE YOU DO IT?
(Handle as a withhold, if applicable. E/S to F/N.)
F2. IS THERE SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE KNEW WASN’T RIGHT, BUT YOU MADE HIM/HER DO IT?
(Handle as a withhold. E/S to F/N.)

-14-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

F3. IS THERE SOMETHING OTHERS KNEW WASN’T RIGHT, BUT OTHERS MADE THEM DO IT?
F0. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU KNEW WASN’T RIGHT, BUT YOU MADE YOURSELF DO IT?
(Handle as a withhold, if applicable, E/S to F/N.)

85. (Assess both Flow 1 and 2.)

F1. IS THERE SOMETHING ANOTHER WISHES HE HADN’T DONE?
F2. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WISH YOU HADN’T DONE?
(Get what it is. Handle as a W/H if applicable, or E/S to F/N.)

F3. IS THERE SOMETHING OTHERS WISH THEY HADN’T DONE?
F0. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WISH YOU HADN’T DONE TO YOURSELF?

86. (Assess both Flaws 1 and 2.)

F1. IS THERE SOMETHING ANOTHER HAS DONE HE HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO FORGET?
F2. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE THAT YOU HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO FORGET?
(Get what. Handle as W/H if applicable, E/S to F/N.)
F3. IS THERE SOMETHING OTHERS HAVE DONE THEY HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO FORGET?
F0. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU’VE DONE TO YOURSELF YOU HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO FORGET?

87. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. DID ANOTHER EVER FEEL BAD ABOUT SOMETHING HE DID?
F2. DID YOU EVER FEEL BAD ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DID?
F3. DID OTHERS EVER FEEL BAD ABOUT SOMETHING THEY DID?
F0. DID YOU EVER FEEL BAD ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DID TO YOURSELF?

88. F1. DID YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVED?
F2. DID ANOTHER GET WHAT HE DESERVED?
F3. DID OTHERS GET WHAT THEY DESERVED?
F0. DID YOU CAUSE YOURSELF TO GET WHAT YOU DESERVED?

89. F1. DID SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT?
F2. DID YOU CONVINCE ANOTHER THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WAS NOT HIS/HER FAULT?
F3. DID OTHERS CONVINCE OTHERS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WAS NOT THEIR FAULT?
F0. DID YOU CONVINCE YOURSELF THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WAS NOT YOUR FAULT?

90. F1. ARE YOU GUILTLESS?
F2. DO YOU FEEL ANOTHER IS GUILTLESS?
F3. DO YOU FEEL OTHERS ARE GUILTLESS?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO FEEL GUILTLESS?

91. IF YOU HAD A FRIEND THAT YOU KNEW WOULD NEVER TELL AN ABOUT IT, WHAT WOULD YOU TELL HIM?
(Get what. Handle as a withhold.)

-15-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

F1. CONDITIONAL: Ask only if the above question reads:
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN BETRAYED BY SUCH A FRIEND?
(Itsa E/S Itsa.)
F2. HAVE YOU EVER BETRAYED SUCH A FRIEND?
(E/S to F/N, or handle as a W/H if applicable.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS EVER BETRAYED SUCH FRIENDS?
(E/S to F/N.)
F0. HAVE YOU EVER BETRAYED YOURSELF?
(E/S to F/N.)

92. (Assess both Flows 3 and 2.)

F1. HAS ANOTHER GIVEN FALSE OVERTS TO YOU?
F2. ARE YOU GIVING OFF FALSE OVERTS?
(Get what false data the pc has been giving. Then get the real overts off.)
F3. HAVE OTHERS GIVEN FALSE OVERTS TO OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU ASSIGNED FALSE OVERTS TO YOURSELF?

93. (Assess both Flows 1 and 2.)

F1. HAS SOMEONE COMMITTED OVERTS AGAINST YOU JUST TO “GET EVEN”?
F2. HAVE YOU COMMITTED OVERTS AGAINST SOMEONE JUST TO “GET EVEN”?
F3. ARE OTHERS COMMITTING OVERTS JUST TO “GET EVEN” WITH OTHERS?
F0. ARE YOU COMMITTING OVERTS JUST TO “GET EVEN” WITH YOURSELF?

94. F1. HAS ANYTHING BEEN SUPPRESSED?
F2. HAVE YOU CAUSED ANOTHER TO SUPPRESS SOMETHING?
F3. HAVE OTHERS CAUSED OTHERS TO SUPPRESS SOMETHING?
F0. HAVE YOU CAUSED YOURSELF TO SUPPRESS SOMETHING?

95. F1. HAVE YOU TOLD ME SOMETHING THAT ISN’T QUITE THE TRUTH?
(Handle as a withhold.)
F2. HAVE YOU LET ANOTHER GET AWAY WITH AN UNTRUTH?
F3. HAVE OTHERS LET OTHERS GET AWAY WITH UNTRUTHS?
F0. HAVE YOU LET YOURSELF GET AWAY WITH AN UNTRUTH?

96. F1. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU’RE GLAD I DIDN’T ASK YOU?
(Get what. Handle as a withhold.)
F2. IS THERE SOMETHING ANOTHER WAS GLAD YOU DIDN’T ASK HIM?
F3. IS THERE SOMETHING OTHERS WERE GLAD OTHERS DIDN’T ASK THEM?
F0. HAVE YOU DECIDED TO GET AWAY WITH A WITHHOLD?
(Get what and handle the withhold. Then E/S on the question to F/N.)

97. F1. SHOULD AN F/N HAVE BEEN CALLED?
(Find out when and rehab.)
F2. HAVE YOU FAILED TO CALL AN F/N ON ANOTHER?
F3. HAVE OTHERS FAILED TO CALL F/Ns ON OTHERS?
F0. HAVE YOU FAILED TO CALL AN F/N ON YOURSELF?

-16-

HCOB 5.11.78 II

98. HAVE I MISSED A WITHHOLD ON YOU?
(Handle as a withhold.)

99. IS THERE ANY OVERT OR WITHHOLD I DIDN’T ASK YOU ABOUT?
(Handle as a withhold.)

100. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU DECIDED NOT TO TELL ME?
(Handle as a withhold.)

101. IS THERE ANY QUESTION ON THIS LIST THAT YOU EXPECTED TO READ?
(Handle as a withhold.)

102. DID YOU REACH AN EP EARLIER?
(Indicate, rehab.)

103. DID WE FAIL TO QUIT ON A WIN?
(Indicate, rehab.)

104. IS THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF BY-PASSED CHARGE?
(Find out what and handle.)

105. HAS ANYTHING BEEN MISSED?
(Get what. Handle as needed.)

106. WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE?
(Indicate, E/S to F/N.)

107. END R-FACTOR: “By the power invested in me, I hereby pronounce that all the overts and withholds you have told me are forgiven, and you are cleared of these sins of the past and free from them.”

106. Ask the pc: “DURING THIS LIST DID YOU GO EXTERIOR?”
(If pc went exterior, acknowledge and gently end the session. The next action would be to check Int/Ext and handle if reading. But not in this session.)

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
LRH:dr

Copyright (c) 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Notes

by Leave a Comment

HCOPL: Communication, Stopping Of

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 AUGUST 1973R1
REVISED 2 JANUARY 1991

ETHICS

COMMUNICATION, STOPPING OF

There has been a recent incident, and there have been others in the past, where an executive seeking to report information or a situation has been prevented from doing so.

This has left those responsible for the well-being of the org without adequate data and has resulted in great difficulty and loss.

It is therefore a Comm Ev offense for anyone in an org to halt or attempt to halt the communication of a Director of Special Affairs, an LRH Comm or a Flag Rep. It is also a Comm Ev offense for any of these to halt or attempt to halt the communication of the Executive Director or an HCO Exec Sec or an HAS to the board or to Flag but communication to the public or authorities of these may be halted by any of the six if it is to the best interest of the org and if the communication itself and the halting of it is at once reported to the board of directors or to Flag.

COMMUNICATION, FAILURE TO DO SO

When an officer or staff member is being depended upon to communicate matters relevant to the post he holds or the activity in which he is engaged, it shall be a Comm Ev offense to fail to do so or to fail to make every conceivable effort to do so.

This also applies to persons sent to represent the org or to handle situations or do observations, whether from the org, a FOLO, the board of directors, Flag or a ship.

When it is found that a terminal who is supposed to communicate is not doing so, the correct (and it will be found, the only practical) method of handling is to have the post observed by another or to send an observation mission to observe the post or in the case of a mission, to bring about immediate recall.

Continuous orders to report up are time wasting and, by experience, impractical and sometimes damaging as the situation may deteriorate.

Proper communication and relay of it is an essential part of the duties of any post.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision assisted by
LRH Technical Research
and Compilations

Notes