Throughout 2006 (and through much of 2005), vigilantism has been a small but noticeable part of the Second Life society. An armed response to an armed threat. Of course nobody can really get hurt or really die in Second Life. Not in any way that costs you in anything other than time and blood-pressure, but there it is. It happens.Some groups scour the grid looking for miscreants and violate the TOS/CS by using weapons and griefer tools against the griefers. Some hire themselves out as security forces for events, clubs and casinos. Some reportedly cause griefing under alternate accounts, providing both the sickness and then being paid for the cure.
Brown (1975) attempted to define vigilantism, saying it represented "morally sanctimonious" behavior aimed at rectifying or remedying a "structural flaw" in society, with the flaw usually being some place where the law was ineffective or not enforced. This is a complex socio-legal definition. It treats vigilantism as a societal reaction and not as a social movement. It also implies that the phenomenon of vigilantism will be short-lived since once a flaw is remedied, there is no reason to continue, and in any event, "sanctimonious" morality is unlikely to be sustainable. For criminological purposes, this definition treats the vigilante the same as the criminal. -- VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND VICTIM SELF-HELP
Vigilantism in the real world basically falls into two classes. On one hand, it is a societal illness, stemming from a flaw in the apprehension or application of justice. On the other hand, it is a crime in and of itself.
Likewise in Second Life, the use of weapons, cages, orbiters and harsh language against griefers also violates the CS. Indeed, many griefers are awfully quick to file an abuse report against you if they can goad you into a rule-breaking response.
I asked a group of people who deal with griefers and griefing on a daily basis what they thought of the armed security groups.
Mecha Dinosaur was first to answer. "Silly," she replied.
Yukiko Omegamu was contemptuous, "Clearly overrated and just want a way to earn quick money."
Seronis Zagato thought a bit longer on it, and suggested that if Linden Lab took swifter, firmer action that griefing (and vigilantism) would be much diminished, "Fewer people would be willing to commit their first offense much less become a serial griefer. A couple 3-7 day IP suspensions would go a long way, and make the point griefing isn't tolerated."
At the end of the day, the Linden Lab Abuse Team doesn't seem to care who started what. Only whether someone broke the rules. In a world where nobody can truly suffer any physical harm, 'self-defense' doesn't appear to carry any weight under the enforcement system.
New systems are apparently in the works, even though we really don't have any idea what they're going to be. New systems mean new rules and resolutions. Will they close the gaps that allow griefers and vigilantes to prosper? Or will they allow Second Life's vigilantes to flourish?
1. "Vigilantism in the real world basically falls into two classes. On one hand, it is a societal illness, stemming from a flaw in the apprehension or application of justice. On the other hand, it is a crime in and of itself."
I cannot put strong enough bold text when I say I dissagree with the term "illness" there. Vigelantism can be attributed to a flaw in the judical system. I can't see it as an illness when the situation is that a judicial system is so far gone that the people can only protect themselves by breaking the law. The situation does not justify many crimes, but if your life is in danger from a person coming at you with a knife, it is not an illness to defend yourself to what ever point necessary, because it takes half an hour for the police to respond. Judicial systems arose out of anarchy, and the very first people in those groups could have been considered vigilantes. :)
(the above is an opinion)
Posted at 5:20PM on Dec 17th 2006 by Neural