A Rape in Cyberspace

(Or TINYSOCIETY, and How to Make One)

Chapter One of Julian Dibbell’s My Tiny Life, 1998. (First published in somewhat different form in The Village Voice, December 1993.)

They say he raped them that night. They say he did it with a cunning little doll, fashioned in their image and imbued with the power to make them do whatever he desired. They say that by manipulating the doll he forced them to have sex with him, and with each other, and to do horrible, brutal things to their own bodies. And though I wasn’t there that night, I think I can assure you that what they say is true, because it all happened right in the living room — right there amid the well-stocked bookcases and the sofas and the fireplace — of a house I came later to think of as my second home.

Call me Dr. Bombay. A good many months ago — let’s say about halfway between the first time you heard the words information superhighway and the first time you wished you never had — I found myself tripping now and then down the well-traveled information lane that leads to LambdaMOO, a very large and very busy rustic mansion built entirely of words. On the occasional free evening I’d sit down in my New York City apartment and type the commands that called those words onto my computer screen, dropping me with what seemed a warm electric thud inside the house’s darkened coat closet, where I checked my quotidian identity, stepped into the persona and appearance of a minor character from a long- gone television sitcom, and stepped out into the glaring chatter of the crowded living room. Sometimes, when the mood struck me, I emerged as a dolphin instead.

I won’t say why I chose to masquerade as Samantha Stephens’s outlandish cousin, or as the dolphin, or what first led me into the semifictional digital otherworlds known around the Internet as multi-user dimensions, or MUDs. This isn’t quite my story yet. It’s the story, for now, of an elusive congeries of flesh and bytes named Mr. Bungle, and of the ghostly sexual violence he committed in the halls of LambdaMOO, and most importantly of the ways his violence and his victims challenged the thousand and more residents of that surreal, magic-infested mansion to become, finally, the community so many of them already believed they were.

That I was myself already known to wander the mansion grounds from time to time has little direct bearing on the story’s events. I mention it only as a warning that my own perspective may be, at this late date, too steeped in the surreality and magic of the place to serve as an altogether appropriate guide. For the Bungle Affair raises questions that — here on the brink of a future in which human existence may find itself as tightly enveloped in digital environments as it is today in the architectural kind — demand a clear-eyed, sober, and unmystified consideration. It asks us to shut our ears for the time being to techno- utopian ecstasies and look without illusion upon the present possibilities for building, in the on-line spaces of this world, societies more decent and free than those mapped onto dirt and concrete and capital. It asks us to behold the new bodies awaiting us in virtual space undazzled by their phantom powers, and to get to the crucial work of sorting out the socially meaningful differences between those bodies and our physical ones. And perhaps most challengingly it asks us to wrap our late-modern ontologies, epistemologies, sexual ethics, and common sense around the curious notion of rape by voodoo doll — and to try not to warp them beyond recognition in the process.

In short, the Bungle Affair dares me to explain it to you without resort to dime-store mysticisms, and I fear I may have shape-shifted by the digital moonlight one too many times to be quite up to the task. But I will do what I can, and can do no better than to lead with the facts. For if nothing else about Mr. Bungle’s case is unambiguous, the facts at least are crystal clear.

The facts begin (as they often do) with a time and a place. The time was a Monday night in March, and the place, as I’ve said, was the living room — which, due largely to the centrality of its location and to a certain warmth of decor, is so invariably packed with chitchatters as to be roughly synonymous among LambdaMOOers with a party. So strong, indeed, is the sense of convivial common ground invested in the living room that a cruel mind could hardly imagine a better place in which to stage a violation of LambdaMOO’s communal spirit. And there was cruelty enough lurking in the appearance Mr. Bungle presented to the virtual world — he was at the time a fat, oleaginous, Bisquick-faced clown dressed in cum-stained harlequin garb and girdled with a mistletoe-and-hemlock belt whose buckle bore the quaint inscription KISS ME UNDER THIS, BITCH! But whether cruelty motivated his choice of crime scene is not among the established facts of the case. It is a fact only that he did choose the living room.

The remaining facts tell us a bit more about the inner world of Mr. Bungle, though only perhaps that it wasn’t a very cozy place. They tell us that he commenced his assault entirely unprovoked, at or about 10 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. That he began by using his voodoo doll to force one of the room’s occupants to sexually service him in a variety of more or less conventional ways. That this victim was exu, a Haitian trickster spirit of indeterminate gender, brown-skinned and wearing an expensive pearl gray suit, top hat, and dark glasses. That exu heaped vicious imprecations on him all the while and that he was soon ejected bodily from the room. That he hid himself away then in his private chambers somewhere on the mansion grounds and continued the attacks without interruption, since the voodoo doll worked just as well at a distance as in proximity. That he turned his attentions now to Moondreamer, a rather pointedly nondescript female character, tall, stout, and brown-haired, forcing her into unwanted liaisons with other individuals present in the room, among them exu, Kropotkin (the well-known radical), and Snugberry (the squirrel). That his actions grew progressively violent. That he made exu eat his/her own pubic hair. That he caused Moondreamer to violate herself with a piece of kitchen cutlery. That his distant laughter echoed evilly in the living room with every successive outrage. That he could not be stopped until at last someone summoned Iggy, a wise and trusted old-timer who brought with him a gun of near wizardly powers, a gun that didn’t kill but enveloped its targets in a cage impermeable even to a voodoo doll’s powers. That Iggy fired this gun at Mr. Bungle, thwarting the doll at last and silencing the evil, distant laughter.

These particulars, as I said, are unambiguous. But they are far from simple, for the simple reason that every set of facts in virtual reality (or VR, as the locals abbreviate it) is shadowed by a second, complicating set: the “real-life” facts. And while a certain tension invariably buzzes in the gap between the hard, prosaic RL facts and their more fluid, dreamy VR counterparts, the dissonance in the Bungle case is striking. No hideous clowns or trickster spirits appear in the RL version of the incident, no voodoo dolls or wizard guns, indeed no rape at all as any RL court of law has yet defined it. The actors in the drama were university students for the most part, and they sat rather undramatically before computer screens the entire time, their only actions a spidery flitting of fingers across standard QWERTY keyboards. No bodies touched. Whatever physical interaction occurred consisted of a mingling of electronic signals sent from sites spread out between New York City and Melbourne, Australia. Those signals met in LambdaMOO, certainly, just as the hideous clown and the living room party did, but what was LambdaMOO after all? Not an enchanted mansion or anything of the sort — just a middlingly complex database, maintained for experimental purposes inside a Xerox Corporation research computer in Palo Alto and open to public access via the Internet.

To be more precise about it, LambdaMOO was a MUD. Or to be yet more precise, it was a subspecies of MUD known as a MOO, which is short for “MUD, Object-Oriented.” All of which means that it was a kind of database especially designed to give users the vivid impression of moving through a physical space that in reality exists only as words filed away on a hard drive. When users dial into LambdaMOO, for instance, the program immediately presents them with a brief textual description of one of the rooms of the database’s fictional mansion (the coat closet, say). If the user wants to leave this room, she can enter a command to move in a particular direction and the database will replace the original description with a new one corresponding to the room located in the direction she chose. When the new description scrolls across the user’s screen it lists not only the fixed features of the room but all its contents at that moment — including things (tools, toys, weapons) and other users (each represented as a “character” over which the user has sole control).

As far as the database program is concerned, all of these entities — rooms, things, characters — are just different subprograms that the program allows to interact according to rules very roughly mimicking the laws of the physical world. Characters may not leave a room in a given direction, for instance, unless the room subprogram contains an “exit” at that compass point. And if a character “says” or “does” something (as directed by its user-owner via the say or the emote command), then only the users whose characters are also located in that room will see the output describing the statement or action. Aside from such basic constraints, however, LambdaMOOers are allowed a broad freedom to create — they can describe their characters any way they like, they can make rooms of their own and decorate them to taste, and they can build new objects almost at will. The combination of all this busy user activity with the hard physics of the database can certainly induce a lucid illusion of presence — but when all is said and done the only thing you really see when you visit LambdaMOO is a kind of slow-crawling script, lines of dialogue and stage direction creeping steadily up your computer screen.

Which is all just to say that, to the extent that Mr. Bungle’s assault happened in real life at all, it happened as a sort of Punch-and-Judy show, in which the puppets and the scenery were made of nothing more substantial than digital code and snippets of creative writing. The puppeteer behind Bungle that night, as it happened, was a young man logging in to the MOO from a New York University computer. He could have been Al Gore’s mother-in-law for all any of the others knew, however, and he could have written Bungle’s script that night any way he chose. He could have sent a command to print the message Mr._Bungle, smiling a saintly smile, floats angelic near the ceiling of the living room, showering joy and candy kisses down upon the heads of all below — and everyone then receiving output from the database’s subprogram #17 (a/k/a the “living room”) would have seen that sentence on their screens.

Instead, he entered sadistic fantasies into the “voodoo doll,” a subprogram that served the not-exactly kosher purpose of attributing actions to other characters that their users did not actually write. And thus a woman in Haverford, Pennsylvania, whose account on the MOO attached her to a character she called Moondreamer, was given the unasked-for opportunity to read the words As if against her will, Moondreamer jabs a steak knife up her ass, causing immense joy. You hear Mr._Bungle laughing evilly in the distance. And thus the woman in Seattle who had written herself the character called exu, with a view perhaps to tasting in imagination a deity’s freedom from the burdens of the gendered flesh, got to read similarly constructed sentences in which exu, messenger of the gods, lord of crossroads and communications, suffered a brand of degradation all-too-customarily reserved for the embodied female.

“Mostly voodoo dolls are amusing,” wrote exu on the evening after Bungle’s rampage, posting a public statement to the widely read in-MOO mailing list called *social-issues, a forum for debate on matters of import to the entire populace. “And mostly I tend to think that restrictive measures around here cause more trouble than they prevent. But I also think that Mr. Bungle was being a vicious, vile fuckhead, and I…want his sorry ass scattered from #17 to the Cinder Pile. I’m not calling for policies, trials, or better jails. I’m not sure what I’m calling for. Virtual castration, if I could manage it. Mostly, [this type of thing] doesn’t happen here. Mostly, perhaps I thought it wouldn’t happen to me. Mostly, I trust people to conduct themselves with some veneer of civility. Mostly, I want his ass.”

Months later, the woman in Seattle would confide to me that as she wrote those words posttraumatic tears were streaming down her face — a real-life fact that should suffice to prove that the words’ emotional content was no mere fiction. The precise tenor of that content, however, its mingling of murderous rage and eyeball-rolling annoyance, was a curious amalgam that neither the RL nor the VR facts alone can quite account for. Where virtual reality and its conventions would have us believe that exu and Moondreamer were brutally raped in their own living room, here was the victim exu scolding Mr. Bungle for a breach of “civility.” Where real life, on the other hand, insists the incident was only an episode in a free-form version of Dungeons and Dragons, confined to the realm of the symbolic and at no point threatening any player’s life, limb, or material well-being, here now was the player exu issuing aggrieved and heartfelt calls for Mr. Bungle’s dismemberment. Ludicrously excessive by RL’s lights, woefully understated by VR’s, the tone of exu’s response made sense only in the buzzing, dissonant gap between them.

Which is to say it made the only kind of sense that can be made of MUDly phenomena. For while the facts attached to any event born of a MUD’s strange, ethereal universe may march in straight, tandem lines separated neatly into the virtual and the real, its meaning lies always in that gap. You learn this axiom early in your life as a player, and it’s of no small relevance to the Bungle case that you often learn it between the sheets, so to speak. Netsex, tinysex, virtual sex — however you name it, in real-life reality it’s nothing more than a 900-line encounter stripped of even the vestigial physicality of the voice. And yet, as many a wide-eyed newbie can tell you, it’s possibly the headiest experience the very heady world of MUDs has to offer. Amid flurries of even the most cursorily described caresses, sighs, or penetrations, the glands do engage, and often as throbbingly as they would in a real-life assignation — sometimes even more so, given the combined power of anonymity and textual suggestiveness to unshackle deep-seated fantasies. And if the virtual setting and the interplayer vibe are right, who knows? The heart may engage as well, stirring up passions as strong as many that bind lovers who observe the formality of trysting in the flesh.

To participate, therefore, in this disembodied enactment of life’s most body-centered activity is to risk the realization that when it comes to sex, perhaps the body in question is not the physical one at all, but its psychic double, the bodylike self-representation we carry around in our heads — and that whether we present that body to another as a meat puppet or a word puppet is not nearly as significant a distinction as one might have thought. I know, I know, you’ve read Foucault and your mind is not quite blown by the notion that sex is never so much an exchange of fluids as as it is an exchange of signs. But trust your friend Dr. Bombay, it’s one thing to grasp the notion intellectually and quite another to feel it coursing through your veins amid the virtual steam of hot netnookie. And it’s a whole other mind-blowing trip altogether to encounter it thus as a college frosh, new to the net and still in the grip of hormonal hurricanes and high-school sexual mythologies. The shock can easily reverberate throughout an entire young worldview. Small wonder, then, that a newbie’s first taste of MUD sex is often also the first time she or he surrenders wholly to the quirky terms of MUDish ontology, recognizing in a full-bodied way that what happens inside a MUD-made world is neither exactly real nor exactly make-believe, but nonetheless profoundly, compellingly, and emotionally true.

And small wonder indeed that the sexual nature of Mr. Bungle’s crime provoked such powerful feelings, and not just in exu (who, be it noted, was in real life a theory-savvy doctoral candidate and a longtime MOOer, but just as baffled and overwhelmed by the force of her own reaction, she later would attest, as any panting undergrad might have been). Even players who had never experienced MUD rape (the vast majority of male-presenting characters, but not as large a majority of the female-presenting as might be hoped) immediately appreciated its gravity and were moved to condemnation of the perp. exu’s missive to *social-issues followed a strongly worded one from Iggy (“Well, well,” it began, “no matter what else happens on Lambda, I can always be sure that some jerk is going to reinforce my low opinion of humanity”) and was itself followed by others from Zakariah, Wereweasel, Crawdaddy, and emmeline. Moondreamer also let her feelings (“pissed”) be known. And even Xander, the Clueless Samaritan who had responded to Bungle’s cries for help and uncaged him shortly after the incident, expressed his regret once apprised of Bungle’s deeds, which he allowed to be “despicable.”

A sense was brewing that something needed to be done — done soon and in something like an organized fashion — about Mr. Bungle, in particular, and about MUD rape, in general. Regarding the general problem, emmeline, who identified herself as a survivor of both virtual rape (“many times over”) and real- life sexual assault, floated a cautious proposal for a MOO-wide powwow on the subject of virtual sex offenses and what mechanisms if any might be put in place to deal with their future occurrence. As for the specific problem, the answer no doubt seemed obvious to many. But it wasn’t until the evening of the second day after the incident that exu, finally and rather solemnly, gave it voice:

“I am requesting that Mr. Bungle be toaded for raping Moondreamer and I. I have never done this before, and have thought about it for days. He hurt us both.”

That was all. Three simple sentences posted to *social. Reading them, an outsider might never guess that they were an application for a death warrant. Even an outsider familiar with other MUDs might not guess it, since in many of them “toading” still refers to a command that, true to the gameworlds’ sword-and-sorcery origins, simply turns a player into a toad, wiping the player’s description and attributes and replacing them with those of the slimy amphibian. Bad luck for sure, but not quite as bad as what happens when the same command is invoked in the MOOish strains of MUD: not only are the description and attributes of the toaded player erased, but the account itself goes too. The annihilation of the character, thus, is total.

And nothing less than total annihilation, it seemed, would do to settle LambdaMOO’s accounts with Mr. Bungle. Within minutes of the posting of exu’s appeal, HortonWho, the Australian Deleuzean, who had witnessed much of the attack from the back room of his suburban Melbourne home, seconded the motion with a brief message crisply entitled “Toad the fukr.” HortonWho’s posting was seconded almost as quickly by that of Kropotkin, covictim of Mr. Bungle and well-known radical, who in real life happened also to be married to the real-life exu. And over the course of the next 24 hours as many as 50 players made it known, on *social and in a variety of other forms and forums, that they would be pleased to see Mr. Bungle erased from the face of the MOO. And with dissent so far confined to a dozen or so antitoading hardliners, the numbers suggested that the citizenry was indeed moving towards a resolve to have Bungle’s virtual head.

There was one small but stubborn obstacle in the way of this resolve, however, and that was a curious state of social affairs known in some quarters of the MOO as the New Direction. It was all very fine, you see, for the LambdaMOO rabble to get it in their heads to liquidate one of their peers, but when the time came to actually do the deed it would require the services of a nobler class of character. It would require a wizard. Master-programmers of the MOO, spelunkers of the database’s deepest code-structures and custodians of its day-to-day administrative trivia, wizards are also the only players empowered to issue the toad command, a feature maintained on nearly all MUDs as a quick-and-dirty means of social control. But the wizards of LambdaMOO, after years of adjudicating all manner of interplayer disputes with little to show for it but their own weariness and the smoldering resentment of the general populace, had decided they’d had enough of the social sphere. And so, four months before the Bungle incident, the archwizard Haakon (known in RL as Pavel Curtis, Xerox researcher and LambdaMOO’s principal architect) formalized this decision in a document called “LambdaMOO Takes a New Direction,” which he placed in the living room for all to see. In it, Haakon announced that the wizards from that day forth were pure technicians. From then on, they would make no decisions affecting the social life of the MOO, but only implement whatever decisions the community as a whole directed them to. From then on, it was decreed, LambdaMOO would just have to grow up and solve its problems on its own.

Faced with the task of inventing its own self-governance from scratch, the LambdaMOO population had so far done what any other loose, amorphous agglomeration of individuals would have done: they’d let it slide. But now the task took on new urgency. Since getting the wizards to toad Mr. Bungle (or to toad the likes of him in the future) required a convincing case that the cry for his head came from the community at large, then the community itself would have to be defined; and if the community was to be convincingly defined, then some form of social organization, no matter how rudimentary, would have to be settled on. And thus, as if against its will, the question of what to do about Mr. Bungle began to shape itself into a sort of referendum on the political future of the MOO. Arguments broke out on *social and elsewhere that had only superficially to do with Bungle (since everyone seemed to agree he was a cad) and everything to do with where the participants stood on LambdaMOO’s crazy-quilty political map. Parliamentarian legalist types argued that unfortunately Bungle could not legitimately be toaded at all, since there were no explicit MOO rules against rape, or against just about anything else — and the sooner such rules were established, they added, and maybe even a full-blown judiciary system complete with elected officials and prisons to enforce those rules, the better. Others, with a royalist streak in them, seemed to feel that Bungle’s as-yet-unpunished outrage only proved this New Direction silliness had gone on long enough, and that it was high time the wizardocracy returned to the position of swift and decisive leadership their player class was born to.

And then there were what I’ll call the technolibertarians. For them, MUD rapists were of course assholes, but the presence of assholes on the system was a technical inevitability, like noise on a phone line, and best dealt with not through repressive social disciplinary mechanisms but through the timely deployment of defensive software tools. Some asshole blasting violent, graphic language at you? Don’t whine to the authorities about it — hit the @gag command and said asshole’s statements will be blocked from your screen (and only yours). It’s simple, it’s effective, and it censors no one.

But the Bungle case was rather hard on such arguments. For one thing, the extremely public nature of the living room meant that gagging would spare the victims only from witnessing their own violation, but not from having others witness it. You might want to argue that what those victims didn’t directly experience couldn’t hurt them, but consider how that wisdom would sound to a woman who’d been, say, fondled by strangers while passed out drunk in the middle of a party and you have a rough idea how it might go over with a crowd of hard-core MOOers. Consider, for another thing, that many of the biologically female participants in the Bungle debate had been around long enough to grow lethally weary of the gag-and-get- over-it school of virtual-rape counseling, with its fine line between empowering victims and holding them responsible for their own suffering, and its shrugging indifference to the window of pain between the moment the rape-text starts flowing and the moment a gag shuts it off. From the outset it was clear that the technolibertarians were going to have to tiptoe through this issue with care, and for the most part they did.

Yet no position was trickier to maintain than that of the MOO’s resident anarchists. Like the technolibbers, the anarchists didn’t care much for punishments or policies or power elites. Like them, they hoped the MOO could be a place where people interacted fulfillingly without the need for such things. But their high hopes were complicated, in general, by a somewhat less thoroughgoing faith in technology (Even if you can’t tear down the master’s house with the master’s tools — read a slogan written into one anarchist player’s self-description — it is a damned good place to start). And at present they were additionally complicated by the fact that the most vocal anarchists in the discussion were none other than exu, Kropotkin, and HortonWho, who wanted to see Mr. Bungle toaded as badly as anyone did.

Needless to say, a pro-death penalty platform is not an especially comfortable one for an anarchist to sit on, so these particular anarchists were now at great pains to sever the conceptual ties between toading and capital punishment. Toading, they insisted (almost convincingly), was much more closely analogous to banishment; it was a kind of turning of the communal back on the offending party, a collective action which, if carried out properly, was entirely consistent with anarchist models of community. And carrying it out properly meant first and foremost building a consensus around it — a messy process for which there were no easy technocratic substitutes. It was going to take plenty of good old-fashioned, jawbone-intensive grassroots organizing.

So that when the time came, at 7 p.m. PST on the evening of the third day after the occurrence in the living room, to gather in emmeline’s room for her proposed real-time open conclave, Kropotkin and exu were among the first to arrive. But this was hardly to be an anarchist-dominated affair, for the room was crowding rapidly with representatives of all the MOO’s political stripes, and even a few wizards. Hagbard showed up, and Aurea and Quanto, Spaff, TomTraceback, Lithium and Bloof, ShermieRocko, Silver Surfer, MaoTseHedgehog, Toothpick — the names piled up and the discussion gathered momentum under their weight. Arguments multiplied and mingled, players talked past and through each other, the textual clutter of utterances and gestures filled up the screen like thick cigar smoke. Peaking in number at around 30, this was one of the largest crowds that ever gathered in a single LambdaMOO chamber, and while emmeline had given her place a description that made it infinite in expanse and fluid in form, it now seemed anything but roomy. You could almost feel the claustrophobic air of the place, dank and overheated by virtual bodies, pressing against your skin.

I know you could because I too was there, in one of those pivotal accidents of personal history one always wants later to believe were approached with a properly solemn awareness of the moment’s portent. Almost as invariably, of course, the truth is that one wanders into such occasions utterly without a clue, and so it was with me that night. Completely ignorant of any of the goings-on that had led to the meeting, I showed up mainly to see what the crowd was about, and though I observed the proceedings for a good while, I confess I found it hard to grasp what was going on. I was still the rankest of newbies then, my MOO legs still too unsteady to make the leaps of faith, logic, and empathy required to meet the spectacle on its own terms. I was fascinated by the concept of virtual rape, but I was even more so by the notion that anyone could take it altogether seriously.

In this, though, I found myself in a small and mostly silent minority, for the discussion that raged around me was of an almost unrelieved earnestness, bent it seemed on examining every last aspect and implication of Mr. Bungle’s crime. There were the central questions, of course: thumbs up or down on Bungle’s virtual existence? And if down, how then to insure that his toading was not just some isolated lynching but a first step toward shaping LambdaMOO into a legitimate community? Surrounding these, however, a tangle of weighty side issues proliferated. What, some wondered, was the real-life legal status of the offense? Could Bungle’s university administrators punish him for sexual harassment? Could he be prosecuted under California state laws against obscene phone calls? Little enthusiasm was shown for pursuing either of these lines of action, which testifies both to the uniqueness of the crime and to the nimbleness with which the discussants were negotiating its idiosyncracies. Many were the casual references to Bungle’s deed as simply “rape,” but these in no way implied that the players had lost sight of all distinctions between the virtual and physical versions, or that they believed Bungle should be dealt with in the same way a real-life criminal would. He had committed a MOO crime, and his punishment, if any, would be meted out via the MOO.

On the other hand, little patience was shown toward any attempts to downplay the seriousness of what Mr. Bungle had done. When the affable HerkieCosmo proposed, more in the way of an hypothesis than an assertion, that “perhaps it’s better to release…violent tendencies in a virtual environment rather than in real life,” he was tut-tutted so swiftly and relentlessly that he withdrew the hypothesis altogether, apologizing humbly as he did so. Not that the assembly was averse to putting matters into a more philosophical perspective. “Where does the body end and the mind begin?” young Quastro asked, amid recurring attempts to fine-tune the differences between real and virtual violence. “Is not the mind a part of the body?” “In MOO, the body IS the mind,” offered HerkieCosmo gamely, and not at all implausibly, demonstrating the ease with which very knotty metaphysical conundrums come undone in VR. The not- so-aptly named Obvious seemed to agree, arriving after sufficient consideration of the nature of Bungle’s crime at the hardly novel yet now somehow newly resonant conjecture that “all reality might consist of ideas, who knows.”

On these and other matters the anarchists, the libertarians, the legalists, the wizardists — and the wizards – – all had their thoughtful say. But as the evening wore on and the talk grew more heated and more heady, it seemed increasingly clear that the vigorous intelligence being brought to bear on this swarm of issues wasn’t going to result in anything remotely like resolution. The perspectives were just too varied, the meme-scape just too slippery. Again and again, arguments that looked at first to be heading in a decisive direction ended up chasing their own tails; and slowly, depressingly, a dusty haze of irrelevance gathered over the proceedings.

It was almost a relief, therefore, when midway through the evening Mr. Bungle himself, the living, breathing cause of all this talk, teleported into the room. Not that it was much of a surprise. Oddly enough, in the three days since his release from Iggy’s cage, Bungle had returned more than once to wander the public spaces of LambdaMOO, walking willingly into one of the fiercest storms of ill will and invective ever to rain down on a player. He’d been taking it all with a curious and mostly silent passivity, and when challenged face to virtual face by both exu and the genderless elder statescharacter PatSoftly to defend himself on *social, he’d demurred, mumbling something about Christ and expiation. He was equally quiet now, and his reception was still uniformly cool. exu fixed an arctic stare on him — no hate, no anger, no interest at all. Just…watching. Others were more actively unfriendly. “Asshole,” spat Karl Porcupine, “creep.” But the harshest of the MOO’s hostility toward him had already been vented, and the attention he drew now was motivated more, it seemed, by the opportunity to probe the rapist’s mind, to find out what made it tick and if possible how to get it to tick differently. In short, they wanted to know why he’d done it. So they asked him.

And Mr. Bungle thought about it. And as eddies of discussion and debate continued to swirl around him, he thought about it some more. And then he said this:

“I engaged in a bit of a psychological device that is called thought-polarization, the fact that this is not RL simply added to heighten the affect of the device. It was purely a sequence of events with no consequence on my RL existence.”

They might have known. Stilted though its diction was, the gist of the answer was simple, and something many in the room had probably already surmised: Mr. Bungle was a psycho. Not, perhaps, in real life — but then in real life it’s possible for reasonable people to assume, as Bungle clearly did, that what transpires between word-costumed characters within the boundaries of a make-believe world is, if not mere play, then at most some kind of emotional laboratory experiment. Inside the MOO, however, such thinking marked a person as one of two basically subcompetent types. The first was the newbie, in which case the confusion was understandable, since there were few MOOers who had not, upon their first visits as anonymous “guest” characters, mistaken the place for a vast playpen in which they might act out their wildest fantasies without fear of censure. Only with time and the acquisition of a fixed character do players tend to make the critical passage from anonymity to pseudonymity, developing the concern for their character’s reputation that marks the attainment of virtual adulthood. But while Mr. Bungle hadn’t been around as long as most MOOers, he’d been around long enough to leave his newbie status behind, and his delusional statement therefore placed him among the second type: the sociopath.

And as there is but small percentage in arguing with a head case, the room’s attention gradually abandoned Mr. Bungle and returned to the discussions that had previously occupied it. But if the debate had been edging toward ineffectuality before, Bungle’s anticlimactic appearance had evidently robbed it of any forward motion whatsoever. What’s more, from his lonely corner of the room Mr. Bungle kept issuing periodic expressions of a prickly sort of remorse, interlaced with sarcasm and belligerence, and though it was hard to tell if he wasn’t still just conducting his experiments, some people thought his regret genuine enough that maybe he didn’t deserve to be toaded after all. Logically, of course, discussion of the principal issues at hand didn’t require unanimous belief that Bungle was an irredeemable bastard, but now that cracks were showing in that unanimity, the last of the meeting’s fervor seemed to be draining out through them.

People started drifting away. Mr. Bungle left first, then others followed — one by one, in twos and threes, hugging friends and waving goodnight. By 9:45 only a handful remained, and the great debate had wound down into casual conversation, the melancholy remains of another fruitless good idea. The arguments had been well-honed, certainly, and perhaps might prove useful in some as-yet-unclear long run. But at this point what seemed clear was that emmeline’s meeting had died, at last, and without any practical results to mark its passing.

It was also at this point, most likely, that TomTraceback reached his decision. TomTraceback was a wizard, a taciturn sort of fellow who’d sat brooding on the sidelines all evening. He hadn’t said a lot, but what he had said, there and elsewhere, indicated that he took the crime committed against exu and Moondreamer very seriously, and that he felt no particular compassion towards the character who had committed it. But on the other hand he had made it equally plain that he took the elimination of a fellow player just as seriously, and moreover that he had no desire to return to the days of wizardly intervention. It must have been difficult, therefore, to reconcile the conflicting impulses churning within him at that moment. In fact, it was probably impossible, for though he did tend to believe that the consensus on *social was sufficient proof of the MOO’s desire to see capital justice done in the Bungle case, he was also well aware that under the present order of things nothing but his own conscience could tell him, ultimately, whether to ratify that consensus or not. As much as he would have liked to make himself an instrument of the MOO’s collective will, therefore, there was no escaping the fact that he must in the final analysis either act alone or not act at all.

So TomTraceback acted alone.

He told the lingering few players in the room that he had to go, and then he went. It was a minute or two before ten. He did it quietly and he did it privately, but all anyone had to do to know he’d done it was to type the @who command, which was normally what you typed if you wanted to know a player’s present location and the time he last logged in. But if you had run a @who on Mr. Bungle not too long after TomTraceback left emmeline’s room, the database would have told you something different.

Mr. Bungle, it would have said, is not the name of any player.

The date, as it happened, was April Fool’s Day, but this was no joke: Mr. Bungle was truly dead and truly gone.

They say that LambdaMOO wasn’t really the same after Mr. Bungle’s toading. They say as well that nothing really changed. And though it skirts the fuzziest of dream-logics to say that both these statements are true, the MOO is just the sort of fuzzy, dreamlike place in which such contradictions thrive.

Certainly the Bungle Affair marked the end of LambdaMOO’s brief epoch of rudderless social drift. The rash of public-spiritedness engendered by the events might alone have led in time to some more formal system of communal self-definition, but in the end it was the archwizard Haakon who made sure of it. Away on business for the duration of the episode, Haakon returned to find its wreckage strewn across the tiny universe he’d set in motion. The death of a player, the trauma of several others, and the nerve- wracked complaints of his colleague TomTraceback presented themselves to his concerned and astonished attention, and he resolved to see if he couldn’t learn some lesson from it all. For the better part of a day he puzzled over the record of events and arguments left in *social, then he sat pondering the chaotically evolving shape of his creation, and at the day’s end he descended once again into the social arena of the MOO with another history-altering proclamation.

It was to be his last, for what he now decreed was the final, missing piece of the New Direction. In a few days, Haakon announced, he would build into the database a system of petitions and ballots whereby anyone could put to popular vote any social scheme requiring wizardly powers for its implementation, with the results of the vote to be binding on the wizards. At last and for good, the awkward gap between the will of the players and the efficacy of the technicians would be closed. And though some anarchists grumbled about the irony of Haakon’s dictatorially imposing universal suffrage on an unconsulted populace, in general the citizens of LambdaMOO seemed to find it hard to fault a system more purely democratic than any that could ever exist in real life. A few months and a dozen ballot measures later, widespread participation in the new regime had already produced a small arsenal of mechanisms for dealing with the types of violence that called the system into being. MOO residents now had access to a @boot command, for instance, with which to summarily eject berserker “guest” characters. And players could bring suit against one another through an ad hoc mediation system in which mutually agreed-upon judges had at their disposition the full range of wizardly punishments — up to and including the capital.

Yet the continued dependence on extermination as the ultimate keeper of the peace suggested that this new MOO order was perhaps not built on the most solid of foundations. For if life on LambdaMOO began to acquire more coherence in the wake of the toading, death retained all the fuzziness of pre-Bungle days. This truth was rather dramatically borne out, not too many days after Bungle departed, by the arrival of a strange new character named Dr. Jest. There was a forceful eccentricity to the newcomer’s manner, but the oddest thing about his style was its striking yet unnameable familiarity. And when he developed the annoying habit of stuffing fellow players into a jar containing a tiny simulacrum of a certain deceased rapist, the source of this familiarity became obvious:

Mr. Bungle had risen from the grave.

In itself, Bungle’s reincarnation as Dr. Jest was a remarkable turn of events, but perhaps even more remarkable was the utter lack of amazement with which the LambdaMOO public took note of it. To be sure, many residents were appalled by the brazenness of Bungle’s return. In fact, one of the first petitions circulated under the new voting system was a request for Dr. Jest’s toading that almost immediately gathered several dozen signatures (but failed in the end to reach ballot status). Yet few were unaware of the ease with which the toad proscription could be circumvented — all the toadee had to do (all the ur- Bungle at NYU presumably had done) was to go to the minor hassle of acquiring a new Internet account, and LambdaMOO’s character registration program would then simply treat the known felon as an entirely new and innocent person. Nor was this ease necessarily understood to represent a failure of toading’s social disciplinary function. On the contrary, it only underlined the truism (repeated many times throughout the debate over Mr. Bungle’s fate) that his punishment, ultimately, had been no more or less symbolic than his crime.

What was surprising, however, was that Mr. Bungle/Dr. Jest appeared to have taken the symbolism to heart. Dark themes still obsessed him — the objects he created gave off wafts of Nazi imagery and medical torture — but he no longer radiated the aggressively antisocial vibes he had before. He was a lot less unpleasant to look at (the outrageously seedy clown description had been replaced by that of a mildly creepy but actually rather natty young man, with blue eyes…suggestive of conspiracy, untamed eroticism and perhaps a sense of understanding of the future), and aside from the occasional jar-stuffing incident, he was also a lot less dangerous to be around. It seemed obvious, at least to me, that he’d undergone some sort of personal transformation in the days since I’d first glimpsed him back in emmeline’s crowded room — nothing radical maybe, but powerful nonetheless, and resonant enough with my own experience, I felt, that it might be more than professionally interesting to talk with him, and perhaps compare notes.

For I too was undergoing a transformation in the aftermath of that night in emmeline’s — and was increasingly uncertain what to make of it. As I pursued my runaway fascination with the discussion I had heard there, as I pored over the *social debate and got to know exu and some of the other victims and witnesses, I could feel my newbie consciousness falling away from me. Where before I’d found it hard to take virtual rape seriously, I now was finding it difficult to remember how I could ever not have taken it seriously. I was proud to have arrived at this perspective — it felt like an exotic sort of achievement, and it definitely made my ongoing experience of the MOO a richer one.

But it was also having some unsettling effects on the way I looked at the rest of the world. Sometimes, for instance, it grew difficult for me to understand why RL society classifies RL rape alongside crimes against person or property. Since rape can occur without any physical pain or damage, I found myself reasoning, then it must be classed as a crime against the mind — more intimately and deeply hurtful, to be sure, than cross burnings, wolf whistles, and virtual rape, but undeniably located on the same conceptual continuum. I did not, however, conclude as a result that rapists were protected in any fashion by the First Amendment. Quite the opposite, in fact: the more seriously I took the notion of virtual rape, the less seriously I was able to take the tidy division of the world into the symbolic and the real that underlies the very notion of freedom of speech.

Let me assure you, though, that I did not at the time adopt these thoughts as full-fledged arguments, nor am I now presenting them as such. I offer them, rather, as a picture of the sort of mind-set that my initial encounters with a virtual world inspired in me. I offer them also, therefore, as a kind of prophecy. For whatever else these thoughts were telling me, I have come to hear in them an announcement of the final stages of our decades-long passage into the Information Age, a paradigm shift that the classic liberal firewall between word and deed (itself a product of an earlier paradigm shift commonly known as the Enlightenment) is not likely to survive intact. After all, anyone the least bit familiar with the workings of the new era’s definitive technology, the computer, knows that it operates on a principle impracticably difficult to distinguish from the pre-Enlightenment principle of the magic word: the commands you type into a computer are a kind of speech that doesn’t so much communicate as make things happen, directly and ineluctably, the same way pulling a trigger does. They are incantations, in other words, and anyone at all attuned to the technosocial megatrends of the moment — from the growing dependence of economies on the global flow of intensely fetishized words and numbers to the burgeoning ability of bioengineers to speak the spells written in the four-letter text of DNA — knows that the logic of the incantation is rapidly permeating the fabric of our lives.

And it was precisely this logic, I was beginning to understand, that provided whatever real magic LambdaMOO had to offer — not the fictive trappings of voodoo and shapeshifting and wizardry, but the conflation of speech and act that’s inevitable in any computer-mediated world, be it Lambda or the increasingly wired world at large. This was dangerous magic, to be sure, a potential threat — if misconstrued or misapplied — to our always precarious freedoms of expression, and as someone who lives by his words I dared not take the threat lightly. And yet, on the other hand, I could no longer convince myself that our wishful insulation of language from the realm of action had ever been anything but a valuable kludge, a philosophically imperfect stopgap against oppression that would just have to do till something truer and more elegant came along.

Was I wrong to think this truer, more elegant thing might be found on LambdaMOO? I did not know. I continued, in my now and then visits, to seek it there, sensing its presence just below the surface of every interaction, yet increasingly I sensed as well that if I really wanted to see what lay beneath those surfaces — to glimpse unveiled whatever there was of genuine historical novelty in VR’s slippery social and philosophical dynamics — I was going to have to radically deepen my acquaintance with the MOO somehow.

For a time I considered the possibility, as I said, that discussing with Dr. Jest our shared experience of the workings of the place might be a step towards just such a breakthrough. But when that notion first occurred to me, I still felt somewhat intimidated by his lingering criminal aura, and I hemmed and hawed a good long time before finally resolving to drop him MOO-mail suggesting we get together. By then it appeared to be too late. For reasons known only to himself, Dr. Jest had stopped logging in. Maybe he’d grown bored with the MOO. Maybe the loneliness of ostracism had gotten to him. Maybe a psycho whim had carried him far away or maybe he’d quietly acquired a third character and started life over with a cleaner slate.

Wherever he’d gone, though, he left behind the room he’d created for himself — a treehouse tastefully decorated with rare-book shelves, an operating table, and a life-size William S. Burroughs doll — and he left it unlocked. So I took to checking in there occasionally, heading out of my own cozy nook (inside a TV set inside the little red hotel inside the Monopoly board inside the dining room of LambdaMOO) and teleporting on over to the treehouse, where the room description always told me Dr. Jest was present but asleep, in the conventional depiction for disconnected characters. The not-quite-emptiness of the abandoned room invariably instilled in me an uncomfortable mix of melancholy and the creeps, and I would stick around only on the off chance that Dr. Jest might wake up, say hello, and share his understanding of the future with me.

It happens, in fact, that Dr. Jest did eventually rise again from his epic sleep. But what wisdom he had to offer on that occasion I couldn’t tell you, for I had given up the habit of my skittish stakeouts by then. Some final transformation had come over me between visits to that lonely place: the complex magic of the MOO grew gradually to interest me less and less as a way of understanding the future and more and more as a way of living the present, until one day I teleported home from Dr. Jest’s treehouse for the last time, determined to wait no longer for a consultation with my fellow doctor to give me what I wanted from the MOO, but to wrest it instead from the very heart of the place. I was resolved now, in other words, to make a life there — to loosen for a while the RL ties that kept me still a sort of tourist on the MOO and to give in, body and soul, to the same powerful gravity that kept so many other MOOers logged on day after day and for hours at a time.

And in the end that’s just what I did, so that for a brief, unforgettable season the buzzing haze of VR came at last to envelop my existence: my small daily dramas were absorbed into the MOO’s teeming reservoir of small daily dramas, my labors were directed as much toward the ongoing construction of that virtual world as toward the quotidian maintenance of my stake in the material one, and my days were swept by the same broad currents of MOO history that gave rise to the Bungle Affair and the momentous social changes that followed on it.

That is all quite another story, of course. Yet as I said before, it begins where Mr. Bungle’s ends, and there remains now only a very little of his to tell. Dr. Jest did finally reawaken, it’s true, one late-December day — but he didn’t even make it to January before he decided, for no apparent reason but old times’ sake, to go on a late-night Bungle-grade rampage through the living room, thus all but formally requesting to be hauled before an official mediator and toaded with a vengeance. The new MOO polity promptly obliged, and I, still busily contriving to loosen those RL ties in preparation for my full-time residency, missed by days my last chance to hear the doctor’s story from his own virtual mouth.

But this was no great loss, I suppose, for after all what more could I have learned? Dr. Jest’s relapse into mindless digital violence, mocking as it did my wishful projection of hard-earned wisdom onto him, was lesson enough, driving home what Bungle’s story in its fullest implications should have already taught me by then: that nothing in the MOO was ever quite what one imagined it to be.

I would still have to learn this lesson many times over, of course. I’d learn it again when on the eve of my immersion in VR two separate and credible sources revealed to me that the virtual psychosis of Mr. Bungle had been even starker than anyone guessed: that the Bungle account had been the more or less communal property of an entire NYU dorm floor, that the young man at the keyboard on the evening of the rape had acted not alone but surrounded by fellow students calling out suggestions and encouragement, that conceivably none of those people were speaking for Bungle when he showed up in emmeline’s room to answer for the crime, that Dr. Jest himself, thought commonly to have reincarnated the whole Bungle and nothing but the Bungle, in fact embodied just one member of the original mob — just one scattered piece of a self more irreparably fragmented than any RL multiple personality could ever fear to be.

I don’t know exactly how often it occurred to me, in the VR-saturated months to follow, that other such shards of Mr. Bungle’s shattered identity might lurk among the ethereal population I moved through on a daily basis. But if they were there they never made themselves known, and I certainly never tried to sniff them out. It was far too late for that: the time had come for me to live in LambdaMOO, and I no longer sought the company of ghosts.


  1. Bungle  •  Feb 26, 2010 @12:50 am


  2. Jest  •  Feb 27, 2010 @1:36 pm

    Epic troll is epic.

  3. Deana Sarellano  •  Mar 30, 2010 @5:03 pm

    Wow, that’s a time saver! :)

  4. juliandibbell  •  Apr 5, 2010 @4:20 pm

    Best 1-word, 4-word, and 5-word analyses of “A Rape in Cyberspace” ever. (Slots 2, 3, and 6 are still open, folks!)

  5. Sam  •  Apr 8, 2010 @8:17 am

    nice idea which can save many time

    Sam@small sofas

  6. juliandibbell  •  Apr 8, 2010 @9:40 am

    Gosh, Sam, I dunno. You’ve definitely shown there’s merit in the 7-word approach, but I’m afraid the “time saver” argument is already taken. What else you got?

  7. Splotchy  •  Apr 16, 2010 @1:24 pm

    “Boolean first connected on Tue Aug 29 16:04:46 1995 PDT
    Which makes him 14 years, 7 months, and 15 days old.
    However, for official purposes his age is 14 years, 6 months, and 10 days.”

    My, the MOO is old and getting older.

    And seriously, Sam’s small sofas are the BEST.

  8. foolie  •  Apr 19, 2010 @7:17 pm

    old internet was so much more genuine

  9. Voran  •  Apr 20, 2010 @2:42 am

    I had almost forgotten about this happening until I stumbled upon the article by accident.

    I have been mudding for over nearly 15 years and to this day I can honestly say this is still one of the worste cases of what should be constituted an internet crime. And for the record, it is NOT in any way protected by the first amendment. For any statement made by one person about another, that limits their rights, violates their personal being, or in any way mentally injurs someone is considered a crime no matter if it took place in real life or cyberspace. You legal ease junkies can define it better than I, but if someone can be charged with defimation of character, slander, most of all mental abuse, and other such crimes that stem from their real life actions, then so should they be charged for the same and equally destructive actions taken online. There is not an excuse for being socially deviant to such anextreme no matter who/where you are, or whether or not you are a virtual self or the real self. There comes a time when personal morals/values MUST be obeyed. If one cannot abide by a basic moral code and not violate another persons rights then one must be willing to accept any and all repercussions of ones own actions.

  10. Jackson  •  May 5, 2010 @5:18 pm

    A drop in the bucket compared to funeral crashing.


    Gotta love people who think the internet is serious business.

  11. David  •  Jun 17, 2010 @6:40 pm

    Here is a pro tip for you:


    Don’t do that ^, it’s bad.

  12. juliandibbell  •  Jun 22, 2010 @8:52 am

    @David: Yeah, the prose is troweled on a bit thick in parts, too thick for some. You might prefer something I wrote more recently on a related topic, drier in tone and with a touch more sympathy for the troll:

    Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World

  13. Mr. Bungle  •  Aug 28, 2010 @10:14 am

    I’m back….. watch your mouth when you talk about me…..

  14. DaisyDeadhead  •  Oct 28, 2010 @2:10 pm

    I’d love an update to this rather meditative entry– with email listservs as the topic, rather than MOOs. The new wrinkle on these thousands of listservs (like on Google groups) is that some people are anonymous, some are pseudo-anonymous, and some provide their real names, leading to an imbalance of power among users. The anonymous people have the power to attack, those of us pseudo-anon or using real names, can’t attack phantoms in return.

    I have decided several of the people who viciously ran me off such a list over a year ago (something I also experienced as online rape/assault), are complete fakes. I don’t know why it took me so long to realize this…. probably because some have blogs (but often end up closing them down as it becomes apparent they are fakes) and some have well-trafficked, “respectable” blogs — but I still believe they are fake. These blogs specialize in attacks also, so they tend to be quite entertaining; thus, no one wants to challenge the identity of the author(s). (The readers are having FUN!)

    It’s a pernicious environment… and one I think has given rise to Facebook, where people feel “safe” from anonymous assholes. Of course, a great deal of privacy is given over to FB, and that is the NEW problem… so the trolls greatly assisted the rise of internet surveillance and spying. They should be held accountable for that too.

    Just as IRL, a rise in crime can lead to increased cops and fascism.

    PS: found this entry when we were featured in the same syllabus! LOL

  15. GalacticStumblebum  •  Oct 30, 2010 @11:19 am

    Found this from a mention on Koster’s MUDTimeLine. Read it. Loved it. Laughed my ass off. I remember hearing about this back in the day.

    I also remember wreaking havoc on irc with my 150 eggdrop botnet. People focus on all the trouble I caused, but hardly anyone seems to have any idea of what it took to build the bloody thing. Cadging shell accounts from around the world, debugging tcl scripts and trying to keep all those moronic eggies synced…whew.

    It was a lot of work – months – to set that sucker up, but it was worth it!

    To the chatters, I was just some crazy Wizard and his terrible army of Dark Servants, but to me it was more like herding goombas. When it worked, it rocked! But usually it barely worked and I spent half my time laughing my ass off at watching my faithful minions randomly blowing up or falling off the edge of the world.

    I took a lot of heat. They called me a griefer and a troll, but really I wasn’t. Usually I wouldn’t attack unless attacked first. Here I am decades later – do I feel bad about the trouble I caused? Nope. After decades on the net, I can tell you one serious problem with people who spend a lot of time in virtuality – they all too often turn into pretentious pricks. I do not have a problem with virtually planting a good swift kick on their virtual backsides.

    Now, admittedly Mr. Bungle crossed the line. Personally, I’d’ve toaded him and Dr. Jest just on general principles just for causing so many watts of electricity to be wasted on useless debate. Kudos to Tom Traceback!

    But it is a valid question; What is real? I don’t hold with the idea that virtuality is “just as real” as RL. It isn’t. There is airspace between the eyes and the screen. When we eventually get jacked in to where the brain can’t tell the difference – that’s another story, then it will be real.

    But as of now – it isn’t. It’s fantasy. You’ll know it’s real when you are in a virtual world, and you suddenly find yourself desperately searching for a place to unload Montezuma’s Revenge.

  16. GalacticStumblebum  •  Oct 31, 2010 @2:30 am

    One problem with bloggish comments – and indeed much of net communications – is that they foster immediate response, rather than after suitable reflection. Having slept on it (well, napped on it), I have additional thoughts…

    What those kids in the dorm room did was extremely offensive yes, but rape? No. It was not rape.

    When I stormed into a chat channel, commanding my homonculi to take the chanops (and their wimpy bots) “out of my sky” and then took over the channel; Was that theft? No. It was not theft.

    The issues are expectations and trust. People expect that when they are on the net, others will respect them as they would in RL. They trust in the sysops to enforce behavior just as they would trust the courts or the cops or mommy and daddy or Big Brother to enforce behavior in RL. They demand that someone hold their hands.

    Perhaps Daisy is right. Perhaps the rise in Facebook popularity is a manifestation of the need for having one’s hand held. Personally, I do not know (I took one look at Facebook and decided that Sturgeon’s Revelation applied and haven’t been back since. I don’t have any fear of that corporation violating of my privacy because I avoid their product like the plague). But I don’t think so. I think rather that the rise in social network popularity is just that – social.

    Nor do I believe that fascism is the culprit. No, I think that the rise in surveillance and the loss of privacy are the natural results of both the control freak propensities of the power elite, and the boohoo whinging of the carebears. People have been taught to expect someone to hold their hands, when they don’t get it, they are outraged – just as they are IRL when the cops do nothing. That makes the carebears call out for someone to do something, and the power elite is all too happy to oblige as it directly feeds their need for power and control.

    It’s a cycle.

    The major problem is the expectations. After all, reality is simply a mechanism for fulfilling expectations – change the expectations of what will be real, and you change what becomes real. That is perhaps the role of antisocial netizens – to bump the expections back into line when they stray too far down the path of fantasy.

    As for griefers and trolls – well, let’s not fool ourselves; The real reason for laws and oversight is because the vast majority of humans really are primates barely out of diapers…in short, assholes.

  17. MGhammer  •  Nov 8, 2010 @11:53 am

    @ JulianDibbell. I call slot 6!

    “Rape is bad. Even textual rape.”

  18. juliandibbell  •  Nov 8, 2010 @3:57 pm

    Slot 6 is yours, @MG, and I believe you will own it for years to come. Very honestly, I can’t imagine that a truer six words were ever written.

  19. Carl Whinnery  •  Nov 29, 2010 @11:12 am

    Exu’s emotional outburst didn’t happen because she felt like she was virtually sexually assaulted, or because “Moondreamer” had to suffer at the hands of “Mr Bungle”. Exu had an emotional outburst because the thing she had aligned herself with, the very thing she choose as an expression of her identity was not respected instead it was publicly disrespected.

    This is not something new and exciting because of RPG’s and online chat rooms, this is old news call it ‘Introjection’ if you want. People have been doing this for years. Take any football supporter that has aligned him or herself with a particular club, when you align yourself to anything such as a football team and you find identity in it, you no longer just represent it, it represents you and when someone does not respect that, or in fact actively disrespects that, you will inevitability feel ‘hurt’. Creating an ‘Us’ unwittingly creates a ‘Them’ (Allport, 1954). But football supporters are used to disrespect from other football supporters and even other sport supporters, (e.g. rugby supporters mocking footballers for being weak) so their ‘posttraumatic tears’ happen when they are around 8 years old.

    The “Mr Bungle Affair” should not be understood as a collision or cohesion between our VR & RL experience (however close it is to the mark). It is probably more accurate (if only slightly) to say whether it is an ‘actual identity abuse’ or an ‘abuse of an outside body’. Be it an avatar, football team or intellectual viewpoint, something that the individual has placed special significance on in regards to the affiliation they feel to that outside body. The difference between saying something in actual reality and saying something that happens in VR is that one actually happens and the other doesn’t, it’s that simple.

  20. Slim Drops  •  May 1, 2011 @4:30 am

    Wow – that’s a mind blowing read if ever there was one!

  21. Cpt. Zirkon  •  Nov 14, 2011 @12:54 pm

    Wonderfully written Mr. Dibbel! I fascinating subject. The 1st Amendment is indeed fundamentally premised on the real/symbolic divide, and was not designed to protect ‘technosocial incantations’ (which, as your analysis of the Mr. Bungle affair has demonstrated, severely complicate this distinction). I enjoyed reading about the democratic system of social control that resulted from this affair, and it gives me hope that intelligent and socially-minded people can influence their reality and keep it (relatively, virtually) safe from the creeps and psychos. However, it remains my opinion that, as long as the I/O switch remains within reach, there is a real/symbolic divide that empowers the users to control the invasion of their own minds in a concrete and personal way that renders the notion of crime fairly null, however invested characters may become with the egos of their progenitors.

  22. Thene  •  Jun 6, 2012 @10:11 pm

    I just realised I’ve been linking this piece around (and rereading it once every few years) for an extremely long time and have never commented on it. I don’t think comments were enabled when I first read it, which was I think in 2005 or 2006.
    My current reason for rereading this is because I’ve been thinking about trigger warnings, which are a whole other breach in the words/reality divide.

    Anyway; thank you, thank you for trying to understand the things I can’t, although it wasn’t a MUD rape that jarred my understanding of reality, but a psuecide that occurred in a tight-knit BBS in 2003. I find it genuinely weird that you and I both thought the path to understanding would involve interrogating the perp, who in reality most likely had no more wisdom regarding what they were doing or why than any other thug ever did. I’ve got to say, I’m jealous for that world where trolls were simply regarded as subnormal participants.

    Even 19 years on this is still one of the two best stories ever written about life on the internet, fictional or otherwise (and I’ve never seen any fiction about the internet that’s half so interesting or intense as the nonfiction. The other is the much longer but less philosophical The Ms. Scribe Story: An Unauthorized Fandom Biography.)

  23. Thene  •  Jun 6, 2012 @10:15 pm

    agh, not sure why the link isn’t working; try starting from the main page instead if you’re interested in reading.

  24. NickK  •  Sep 11, 2012 @7:40 pm

    Umm, this doesn’t refer to real people, does it? Then considering writing is an art-form, we cannot be horrified by this, and as with unasked-for porn, just turn it off if you don’t like..

  25. Pete  •  Dec 2, 2012 @4:51 am

    This was a fascinating read; I should think it will remain relevant for the forseable and more likely will become even more important in the future, particularly as we have games such as Eve Online – where in game credits have a RL monetary value and griefers can con people out of VL credits = RL money.

    The most interesting part of this article for me is the debate that one action created within a small community about creating I kind of governance – is this how some Government has been formed in the past in RL?

    Equally interesting though is the comment from GalacticStumblebum above; specifically:

    “As for griefers and trolls – well, let’s not fool ourselves; The real reason for laws and oversight is because the vast majority of humans really are primates barely out of diapers…in short, assholes.”

    Are griefers just individuals who have made the assumption that all people at heart are wrongdoers (perhaps because they were a victim at some point), then decide to take it upon themselves to ‘educate’ people about the way of the world by doing wrong to others? i.e. they behave like an asshole to ensure thier victims know there are assholes out there.

  26. Annie  •  Dec 4, 2012 @8:59 pm

    “about halfway between the first time you heard the words information superhighway and the first time you wished you never had”

    The second I read this I knew it would be a fantastic read and I was not disappointed. An interesting take on modern communication.. Very thought provoking and humorous! Well done.

  27. Birric Forcella  •  Jan 6, 2013 @12:21 am

    If you regulate what people can say, you regulate what people can think.

    There is no right not to be offended by words.

    The developments of the last 2 decades, YouTube, SL, and many other places shows clearly that the above article is wrongheaded. The line between rape and violence in words and cartoons is more clear today than ever.

    However, all that hysteria about words has cheapened the concept of rape itself. Feminists now call anything and everything they dislike rape. It’s an offense to real rape survivors to call Mr. Bungle a rapist. Anybody doing so should be ashamed of themselves.

    The one thing that clearly WAS offensive is the fact that there was no rule against Mr. Bungle’s behavior (as stated in an offhand remark). Yet, he was killed. That is a violation of in-game AND real-life ethics.

    Birric Forcella

  28. Mdvfunes  •  Apr 23, 2013 @5:36 am


    What a gifted storyteller you are! My interest in this is not LambdaMoo but the ethical issues your story raises. I am an educational technologist and found your article referred to here:

    Ethics become much murkier in game spaces, where identities are assumed and actions are fic- tive, designed to allow broader rein to explore darker fantasies.That said, unwritten and often imperfectly shared norms exist about acceptable or unacceptable conduct. Essays, such as Julian Dibbel’s “A Rape in Cyberspace” (1993), Henry Jenkins’s “Playing Politics in Alphaville” (2004), and Always-black’s “Bow Nigger” (2004) offer reminders that participants in these worlds understand the same experiences in very different terms and follow different ethical norms as they face off against each other.


    all this in the context of helping learners develop digital literacy to be able to learn online. You raise many interesting issues – not least of which is the question of whether a VR crime should be judged on the same grounds as a crime in RL.

    Very interesting and what an engaging story – or as one of your earlier comments put it: that is a mind blowing read. Thank you.

  29. Binäre Optionen handeln  •  Sep 11, 2013 @5:41 am

    Hi there, I do think your site could possibly be having browser compatibility problems.
    Whenever I look at your site in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet
    Explorer, it’s got some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to give you a quick heads up!

    Apart from that, excellent website!

  30. Renata  •  Mar 11, 2014 @6:41 pm

    Greetings Julian,

    You have written an extremely thought-provoking article, as demonstrated by some of comments on this forum.

    As a woman, it is difficult to remain objective in this matter. So I will try. I believe Mr Bungle is a troll (a very good one) who was motivated to cause distress or controversy to others. What Mr Bungle did was not acceptable – under any circumstance. But… it was not rape. Anyone who claims it was needs to step back and place things into perspective.

    We all need to take a step back from such online (not real) incidents and ask ourselves whether or not we want to give this matter our energy and attention. We shouldn’t. We have that power. A real-life rape victim/survivor does not i.e. they do not have the opportunity to turn the incident off.

    I want to also include my thoughts about a comment made on this forum that stating, because this was an art-form we shouldn’t be offended by it. Just because something is labelled “art” does not mean it shouldn’t be scrutinised… nor does it mean we should not be offended by it.

    Thank you for sharing this article. It had been suggested to me by a friend and I have quite a lot to process as a result.



  31. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater  •  Jul 7, 2014 @12:20 pm


  32. vcnt  •  Dec 2, 2014 @3:35 pm

    Just stumbled across this today. Well written and thought provoking.

    Reading this really made me dive into my own thoughts about anonymity and trolling. I’ve always… “disliked” it, but until today never really pondered exactly why.

    So, thoughts…

    Trolling is destructive or antisocial behavior (obviously). I think more importantly that there is an implicit cowardice in the act. Usually in the form of anonymity, but also to the topic itself; a troll is not invested or engaged in the situation.

    A troll is nearly always safe, buffered both in identity and intent. To me it brings to mind a person in the midst of failure, with the excuse “that’s because I wasn’t actually trying” Trolling usually comes bundled with all the other issues of anti social behavior; failure to integrate, insecurity, deception, aggressiveness, rationalizing and a range of other perfectly average traits – which most of us learn to identify in people during adolescence.

    I believe this becomes a problem when we begin to arbitrarily assign significance to different forms of communication, as you’ve addressed in the article. Speaking to a person vs a phone call vs VOIP vs text – Real, safe, safer, safest. The means of transmission is remarkably similar, as is the effect on the recipient. If the effect on a person is the same, is the method of communication truly important?

    As digital communication becomes more and more pervasive, our society cannot afford to tie its hands when dealing with purely destructive behavior, whether or not it says “just kidding” at the end.

  33. Pearline  •  Apr 10, 2015 @7:30 am

    Hi there to every body, it’s my first pay
    a visit of this website; this website includes
    remarkable and genuinely excellent stuff in favor of visitors.

  34. Natisha  •  Jun 3, 2015 @12:16 pm

    Hello, i feel that i saw you visited my site so i
    got here to go back the desire?.I am attempting to in finding issues to improve my web site!I
    suppose its adequate to use a few of your concepts!!

  35. Hugh  •  Sep 6, 2015 @5:01 am

    That is a really good tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
    Brief but very precise info… Thank you for sharing this one.

    A must read article!

    Here is my web blog: nootrobrain ingredients,

  36. Common Sense  •  Nov 5, 2015 @2:34 pm

    It is odd to consider how many of us have lived our entire adult lives with this confluence of online and offline realities. My first time on a message board was 1995 or 1996, I believe. Either way, it constitutes a little more than half my life, and certainly my entire adult life. We’ve been at this Internet thing for a while now, and I think it is pretty safe to say we have been able to compartmentalize the online and offline to a degree, at least as it pertains to avatars that do not include our real identities. Threats attached to a social media profile are obviously regarded as more serious than something like this, in a game or role-playing setting where people are using alternate identities. That said, it still baffles me at times how many people who would never engage in violence or harassment to someone’s face have no problem being profanely anti-social in online environments. I’d like to see more social science on Internet trolls.

  37. ช่างกุญแจ  •  Jan 18, 2016 @6:25 pm

    Quality posts is the key to attract the users to pay a visit the website,
    that’s what this site is providing.

170 Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Latest Articles