Problems, people and pinheads

Audio version: http://www.audiofarm.org/philipfish/audiofile/13761.mp3

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power” – Abraham Lincoln.

This article is effectively a comprehensive expansion on my previous statement from some months ago, explaining why I left the MicroWiki Community. Now I will be elaborating on that, as I have too much spare time on my hands (why else would I be in micronationalism?) and I need to get some loads off my back. For those who say that I’m just complaining for the hell of it/to stir up trouble/because I’m evil, I don’t really care. I know why I’m writing this and that’s all that matters.

To begin, I will attempt to establish how the community got to its present deplorable state. This is more a lesson in history than anything else, and human nature has proven time and time again that we seldom learn from the vital lessons of history – this is no different.

We can begin from the obvious point – the era of effective hegemony of the Grand Unified Micronational (GUM) Bloc led by the now infamous Robert Lethler. During this era, relative stability reigned. With few new micronations entering the community as even mildly serious threats to its power, there was little to destabilise the situation save for occasional disputes, such as the Erusian-New European War and the Joe Foxon Controversy. These were almost always centred around the almost godlike figure of Robert Lethler and the Democratic People’s Republic of Erusia, which was thought totally kosher at the time.

The Community was undeniably a unipolar political environment, whereby the all-powerful, all-seeing and all-knowing GUM with the unbreakable power of Robert Lethler was the unchallenged authority and highest justice of the land. Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is a matter for other conjecture and musing, but is besides the point here. This atmosphere of stability and certainty proved to be a relatively satisfactory state of affairs for many who were around at the time, and it was this atmosphere that has been attempted to be replicated in many different ways ever since the ejection of Lethler in July.

The problem with this was that it could never be replicated. Other than Lethler, nobody ever had such a vice-like grip on the community sufficient to twist it this way and that to suit their own agenda. It was the constant referring back to the ‘Days of Lethler’ as a golden age of sorts that spurred many, whether wittingly or unwittingly, down the path of restoring this age. One only has to turn to the OAM for an unintentional attempt to retrieve this age of stability and certainty, which ultimately failed, as all attempts did.

Speaking as its founder, the OAM was not intended to take the course that it did. Due to the absence of any sort of central discussion area for the MicroWiki Community, other than talk pages on the wiki itself, the OAM became the de facto official forum for the Community. This led to what some referred to as ‘hyperactivity’, with some periods having over 50 posts per day at some points – more than any other intermicronational forum at the time. Practically all online forum-based discussion in the Community were in this single forum. This was not necessarily a bad thing, but, again, this is a matter for other conjecture and is besides the point.

How the example of the OAM relates to the point is that the massive influx of member nations, 75 at its peak, turned the OAM from just an unusually successful intermicronational organisation into the hub of the Community. This centralisation of practically all online discussion activity and communication in the Community, save for Skype and wiki talk pages, into one forum with a select few staff members in control, albeit elected, was a type of the control over the community that Lethler could’ve planned. To a degree, the power of the GUM was replaced by the power of the OAM.

When the MicroWiki Forum was finally established independently of the OAM, the OAM lost most of its activity, discussion and debate. In this way, the OAM lost its power the very minute the forum was established. For the first time ever, a forum was provided for the express facility of the MicroWiki Community, independent of any organisation or entity – not even the forum staff were necessarily the same as the MicroWiki Staff. This had an immediate and profound effect on the OAM’s forum activity. In just a matter of days, there were only four or five members still posting on the forum, as opposed to the hyperactivity experienced in happier times. This was a profound loss for the OAM, which it must now make up lest it be relegated “to the dustbin of history” (Trotsky).

Another important lesson to be learned from our past is the peculiar and unusual way in which many have pursued their foreign policies. From practically the beginnings of the community, nutcases and loonies are commonplace, no matter which year you look through. It is natural to move towards this small minority of micronations and micronationalists when analysing the absurd and the insane of foreign policy in the community, but a wider view, encompassing all nations, must be taken if an accurate view and opinion is to be developed.

Without delving into specific examples or micronations, the almost complete lack of any sort of independent media or, for that matter, any independent entity in micronationalism, foreign policies of micronations are not set up to withstand scrutiny for the simple reason that there is hardly any. In the macronational world, countries’ foreign policies are routinely subjected to analysis and criticism from independent media, think tanks and other institutions – this simply doesn’t happen in micronationalism.

It is because of this that most micronational foreign policies are either non-existent, hypocritical or do not follow any sort of logic or reasoning. A micronation may release a statement condemning a particular government system, for instance, and would later accept open diplomatic relations and recognition of a micronation with that very government system in place.

To be fair, some gestures and elements of international relations do not have the same significance or importance in many micronational sectors. De-recognition of a macronation by another macronation is regarded as a ‘last resort’ type of approach and is rarely used except in extreme circumstances (e.g. a war). International organisations are held in higher regard, for the most part, in the macronational world than in the micronational world, where we have coined the term ‘YAMO’ to describe most of them in a negative manner. Therefore, some aspects of micronational foreign policies are not directly comparable to their macronational equivalents.

However, the point still remains. The fact that many micronations in many sectors have foreign policies, if any, that can only be described as hypocritical, ridiculous or criminally insane, impedes the progress of rational and at least relatively sane foreign policies. In an environment where the ridiculous is on an even par with the rational, assuming that the aim in the particular sector or sphere is political simulation, it is detrimental to foreign development and image.

Moving on now from the history of the situation, I will now turn to what is wrong with the present situation. I know that most of the disputes have been settled at the time of writing, and I have no intention of sparking off fresh arguments, debate or anything similar.

We’ll start off with the community’s unhealthy obsession for unlimited freedom of speech without any hindrance whatsoever. I wish to point out in advance that this is by no means everybody or even a majority – the poll on the MicroWiki Forum to ban von Linden shows this – it’s just what seems to me to be one of things that we tolerate and should not.

As I have stated myself on many occasions, freedom of speech is essential towards the working of pretty much anything. When something comes to the point where one cannot stand up and criticise, you know that something has gone wrong somewhere. However, as I have also said on many occasions, certain boundaries must not be crossed when exercising this right. Obviously, one runs up against the age-old wall of racism and discrimination. What constitutes as racism or discrimination is a hotly debated topic, with no solid definition. Thus, separate entities must form their own definitions and guidelines as to what this constitutes. Something similar to this is harassment. Again, exactly what this constitutes is unclear and debated.

The tragedy of all this in our community is many of us do not appear to be able to grasp the fact that as a community, we must have some sort of order. I’m not saying that the few should rule over the many with an iron fist and telescreens, but that at least a little bit of law and order is brought in, there has to be something that everyone respects and abides by, but not necessarily agrees with. In the way that we have continued for so long, we appear to have an attitude of “I don’t agree with that therefore I’ll publish a video/speech about it and/or I’ll just completely disregard/disobey/contravene it”.

The unfairly infamous Resolution 28 in the OAM was the closest we ever got to a sort of ‘MicroWiki Code of Conduct’ for the community. It was comprehensive, albeit perhaps incomprehensible to some, and was a sensible and rational response to a desperate need in the OAM at the time. However, as discussed previously, the status of the OAM forum as the de facto forum for the MicroWiki meant that Resolution 28 was also pretty much the de facto Code of Conduct for the community. Some found it intolerable; most accepted it and moved on. But those few who resented it continued causing the same old fuss and rukus about it for so long, that we forgot what the OAM was supposed to be doing and what it was there for.

Moving on to the OAM proper now, and there are numerous problems facing the organisation currently and there were many more we faced in the past. The most obvious and telling problem is the siphoning off of activity and discussion to the new MicroWiki Forum.

The establishment of the MicroWiki forum hit the OAM harder than anyone/anything else. Overnight, the number of daily posts dropped significantly and continued to for two to three weeks, until finally settling down at a point considerably below that experienced in happier times. I can only say that this could be a good or a bad thing, depending on how the organisation handles this problem. It could be beneficial in that fewer members equals fewer points of view which equals fewer disputes, which benefits everyone. On the other hand, it could be detrimental in that with fewer members and less activity people begin to lose interest in it and the OAM begins to lose its power. And at this point, I’m afraid that the latter appears to be the path that it’s heading down.

I’d like to say more, but I’d say that about 2000 words would be stretching the very limits of people’s attention spans, and I’m pretty sure I’ve covered the most important areas of what I have to say. If you haven’t heard already, I have taken the personal decision not to officially ‘return’ to the MicroWiki Community, but the Parliament of A1 has passed a motion to re-apply to join the Organisation of Active Micronations, where I hope that we can make a positive difference. At the present time, other negotiations, ultimata and discussions are underway that I will address in a separate statement/article.

In final conclusion, whether you like me personally or not, I would highly encourage people to take at least something from this. It is extremely important that we learn from our mistakes and from history – the past is the mirror of the present.