Blog #7: Violation in the living room!

In Dibbell's "A Rape In Cyberspace", we see a group of people (including the author as "Dr. Bombay") from all around the world in text chat with each other in LambdaMOO. They are scattered throughout different rooms of a "mansion", where groups meet to socialize. There are newbies and the more advanced, longer users of the LambdaMOO chat. The community has no set-down rules to follow, but they are a civilized group. Enter Mr. Bungle! Determined to be a sociopath by the group, Mr. Bungle used a subprogram, his "voodoo doll", to send an unwanted message to the character (and of course, RL person) exu that stated to shove something up somewhere that didn't go there. Exu, of course, was not happy about this and wanted Mr. Bungle gone from any existence, RL or VR. Discussions, including a final very long one between 30 group members in the living room, eventually saw it that, since there were no rules, and the wizards could only act on a unanimous group decision to oust Bungle, the violator could not be punished by toading. That's when one of the wizards, Tom Traceback, acted on his own, and toaded the VR criminal.

A main argument made by Dibbell in this article asks how we are to punish someone in an online community if there are no fore-made rules present and not everyone agrees that would be the option to use. We don't always know the intent of the perpetrator; if what was said was a joke or some act-in-the-future threat. It might have been some child at his brother's computer. It might possibly have been someone very normal, such as an attorney or policeman, that was feeling suicidal or was very drunk and happened to type the first angry thoughts that came to mind. Traceback certainly had the power in his grip to rid the living room (and the other rooms for that matter) of Bungle. Was there enough evidence in the group of minds, and not just in Traceback's mind, to rid LambdaMOO of this awful one-time offender? Dibbell seems to argue a point that Mr. Bungle needed to be talked to more to find out why he said what he did. Dibbell (Dr. Bombay) kept trying to locate him to talk, but to no avail. He came back as Dr. Jest, but soon disappeared. Dr. Bombay knew Dr. Jest had come back as a calmer, less troublesome Bungle, but had the group was cautious.

What the group had to deal with was how to punish something like this, with no group rules assigned. A New Direction was going to be formed that put the group, not the wizards, in charge of toaded members. But, without the rules, what could they do? The group did go into the New Direction, only after laws were made, and petitions and ballots formed into existence. There was now a chain of command, that gave the group power to control another occurrence of a bad situation.

This article shows us that we do need online community rules (as we have RL community rules), as well as a set of punishments, that all can agree on. It's easier said than done. We must protect everyone in the various communities (RL or VR) by whatever means necessary. But we cannot judge, by one offense, if someone if a sicko or just a jokester. It could very well be, in this case, a group of college kids at a computer telling one what to type. Eventually someone has to answer in some way for the crime, as the one student did by himself. However, if there are no rules present at the time, what crime did Mr. Bungle really perform. I would say a crime of ignorance. Be it that or some other definition of the crime, we really cannot punish if there is not set of bylaws and punishment. If there are rules and regulations set forth in a VR community, and they are broken by someone, then a first offense (especially if very bad and immoral) should and will most likely be deemed punishable by banning the member. This is something almost all, if not all, the group members will agree on. Then there shall be no question.

I have been part of an online Pro Wrestling community since 2001, about 3 months after the group formed. The group, by the time I joined, had recently came up with a group of rules to be adhered to by all group members. If anyone came along and broke rules, s(he) was given a warning (depending on the severity of the offense). The second time that member broke ANY rule, they were immediately banned permanently from the group (until they got a new internet account). One such member (cannot remember his avatar or screenname) that had used profanity in the group (F**K so and so wrestlers) for a week was then given a warning. He deserved the warning. He didn't break any listed rules after that. However, he started posting non-wrestling pictures (such as movie stars and the such) and got completely banned. He was given no warning at all. He was gone that day! I had chatted with this guy off and on through a couple months after his warning. He was a good guy that made sure he didn't piss off the moderators any longer. When he posted the non-wrestling pictures, there was, at that time, no rule posted in the group against it. I had his email, so I emailed him after the permanent ban, and asked him what he thought. He felt, like most of the group, that he was treated unfairly. There was no rule against posting non-wrestling pictures. He felt he was just a target for the moderators from when he cursed alot of the wrestlers. I honestly have to feel the same way about it. He was a target. The moderator wanted him banned and was waiting for any little thing he did to ban him. I feel this relates to Tom Traceback, as Tom was lingering in the room and felt he heard what he needed to know, albeit not as a group consensus. Tom Traceback wanted to ban (toad) Bungle for good, somewhat based on his own bias towards Bungle. Back to the wrestling group and the no-rules time of LambdaMOO. Most of us in the wrestling community felt, like those that argued a little favorably for Mr. Bungle to stay, that since there was not the listed rule, the wrestling group member should never have been banned. Should Mr. Bungle and the wrestling group member have been warned, oh definitely. Without doubt. You don't send out messages about someone sticking a knife in their posterior to people, nor do you post anything but wrestling pictures in a wrestling community. However, if a group does not condone these actions, and for the better agreement by the entire community on punishment if one digresses from the rules, a list of rules and bylaws needs to be put into place. Do not punish until one knowingly breaks an established set of rules that (s)he knows about.

Works Cited

Dibbell, Julian. "A Rape In Cyberspace." The Village Voice. 21 December 1993.