Julian Dibell writes with intriguing questions concerning the corollary of violence in cyberspace.
The article discusses virtual rape that took place in the digital world of LambdaMOO. As a factious character, Mr. Bungle committed a heinous crime in a community with no boundaries other than implied. His entrance and development of the VR room in which the attack occurred leaves one to question the purpose of the user. There were no doors when the user exu entered and was violently raped with a knife. And the inability by its VR community to stop or control their surroundings is even more complex. Mr. Bungle went on to perpetrate others in a vicious manner and was free to rein hell upon whomever he saw fit. The community, outraged after witnessing one avatar being violently raped by another, mounted a debate on what to for about Mr. Bungle and what, if anything, did they have control over. Not having developed any sort of legal structure and any form of retribution, Mr. Bungle would remain inherently dangerous. They spoke of “virtual castration” and “toad-ing” him through the efforts of the Wizard. With the ability to modify and change, or eliminate Mr. Bungle they carry the ultimate power. The community made several suggestions to the likes of a lynch mob; their message was clear, Mr. Bungle need to be brought to some form of retribution. The Wizard, acting alone, systematically eliminated Mr. Bungles through Toad-ing. The concern is who has the power, who ultimately decides what is violent, to what extent will the community tolerate violence, and should any one entity have that ultimate power. My question would be, “Who will stop the Wizard if he/she becomes a Mr. Bungles?” He was killed off, banished in a sense from ever returning. Then came the most unusual behavior out of the group I saw, when Mr. Bungle returned in another form and walked into the VR room of the very people he violated. The reaction at first was very cautionary but the community eventually allowed him to observe as he was not a threat yet. It reminds me of conditioning. The crime of rape, although heinous, becomes diluted by the very behavior of the community itself. Should he be killed off again? Would he continue with his past behaviors or was he just merely a voyeur, waiting for post-gratification from the community? The women who were subjected to his initial attacks had ongoing mental health issues in their physical presence and ultimately decided he needed to go, as well did the community. But he left behind a virtual presence, an empty room where he was registering as asleep. Oddly enough, his room was visited periodically to see what, if anything was happening. Had he returned? Was his avatar sleeping? Why would anyone return to the scene, a violent virtual hell to look?
My own thoughts on this are communities, virtual or otherwise, share the same commonality, inquisitiveness. We seem to want to know the dirty details maybe to overcome our fears that it can’t ever happen to us. Society has been led down the path of virtual voyeurism where they can look and investigate. Media is like an addiction, revealing human suffering to the level of absurdity. My own experience with this allure of media was during the Gulf War. I was astounded for the first time war could be piped into my living room 24/7, and I could not control how it affected me. I watched for endless hours as people, homes, and countryside’s were destroyed. I was afraid if I turned it off I would not be part of the current events or be well informed. I was addicted to the commentators and the blow by blow descriptions of death and destruction. My life became stressed as I was consumed with this new found media experience. The Vietnam War was censored and only governmental approved versions hit the airwaves. Eventually, I had to turn off the noise box and set boundaries for me. I think the experience is similar to those in the community that witnessed the rape virtually. The fascination with unbelievable new experiences has us chasing virtual ambulances, wanting to witness or understand. I am not sure but it needs some addressing virtually in how we establish communities and whether we allow total access or govern our behaviors and others. Without even thinking, new communities seem to establish VR worlds in which they have exclusive, understood norms carried over from their physical world. Unlike Blue Laws, where they are on the legal books but never enforced, MOO’s seem to lack some hierarchal governmental controls among users, or at least they use to. As always, society learns to establish a sense of order and what is acceptable in life. It is good these things are under scrutiny and how they affect all in the virtual world. Whether cyber crime can be stopped or restrained is anybody’s guess. Who should be responsible? Why?


