A Character Study in Manufactured Escalation
Elle fabricated a non-existent rule to weaponize process and reject de-escalation. She claimed "Bravespace is where you work out differences, not private texts" as established policy, used it to refuse Justin's private resolution attempt, then dismissed actual community guidelines as "mansplaining" when corrected.
This is the same pattern as the Treasurer Interrogation: weaponize process (fabricate rules, hijack designated time, create confusion about boundaries) to escalate conflict and gain procedural advantage.
The Pattern: One person tries to de-escalate using proper conflict resolution. The other person escalates to Win-Lose stages, fabricates rules, and attacks character when corrected.
Elle, Justin Morrison, and Anh were on a Jitsi call editing a fundraising letter. The call became contentious. Afterward, Elle posted to Bravespace:
"This is a request (a demand, really) for full disengagement between you and me for the next 48 hours in-person and on discord." — Elle, December 20, 2024 [archived]
Elle's main complaint was that Justin had been rude during the call, particularly toward Anh.
Instead of responding publicly or escalating, Justin attempts private, conciliatory resolution — the lowest stages of conflict.
Justin sent Elle a private, conciliatory DM attempting to de-escalate:
This is exactly what conflict resolution guidance recommends: a direct, private attempt to de-escalate before involving the broader community.
Justin spoke with Anh directly about Elle's claim that he had disrespected them:
"I spoke with Anh at NB yesterday to apologize and they said they did not feel offended." — justinmorrison, December 23, 2024 [archived]
The person Elle claimed was victimized did not feel victimized.
"Bravespace is where Noisebridge-ers work out differences, not private texts. I have not responded to your private text. I ignored it." — Elle, December 23, 2024 [archived]
Elle stated this as established Noisebridge policy. It is not.
From the Noisebridge wiki (documented since at least 2022):
Restorative communication is a way to repair relationships that have been damaged by conflict, and prevent future conflicts from arising. By choosing our words carefully, we can experience dramatic shifts in our results.
Core Concepts:— Noisebridge Wiki: Restorative Communication
- All conflicts share an underlying structure. Conflict arises when someone does or says something that we find harmful, and we want them to stop or change their behavior.
- Threatening language backfires. When we want someone to change their behavior, we usually use threats, fear, or punishment to get them to change.
- Communicating observations, feelings, needs and requests restores connection. Using Restorative Communication, by clearly expressing our needs and offering the space for others to do the same, we can create change through building greater connection, compassion, and collaboration.
The Bravespace channel guidelines (Aug 29, 2023) reference this policy:
Please consider the #bravespace channel a sacred circle for kind and considerate radical honesty. A place where — if you cannot have your conversation offline (in person) — we can conduct written conversations in the spirit of Restorative Communication, a more flexible version of NVC that we can adapt for our needs and culture as we practice it.
Productive community conversations happen when more voices are able to come to the table, not fewer.
— nthmost, August 29, 2023 (pinned channel guidelines) | Full policy on wiki
What these documented policies encourage:
Justin's private, conciliatory DM was exactly what RC recommends: direct communication seeking connection and repair.
Elle's demand for public confrontation was the opposite: forcing a public arena, rejecting de-escalation, using process as a threat.
Evidence Elle's rule exists: None — not in RC policy (documented since 2022), not in channel guidelines (2023), not in meeting notes.
On December 24, Justin forwarded the Bravespace channel guidelines (which outline RC) to Elle. Her response:
Result: Elle gained procedural advantage by fabricating policy, then refused correction when confronted with actual norms.
By inventing this rule, Elle achieved:
| Date | Elle's Demand | Justin's Response |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 20 | "48 hours disengagement (a demand, really)" | Sends private conciliatory DM |
| Dec 21 | Ignores DM, posts publicly citing fabricated rule | Objects to non-consent, reproduces DM |
| Dec 22 | "I demand an additional week of disengagement. Reconciliation will require mediation." [archived] | Reports Anh wasn't offended |
| Dec 23 | "Stop talking to me J, not here or anywhere else. Disengage for a week, starting yesterday." [archived] | "I will not participate in further exchange unless these points can be addressed in person" |
| Dec 24 | "Disengage means leave me alone." | "When you're ready to speak in person with a third party, give me a few options for times and days" |
After Elle dismissed Justin's sharing of actual guidelines as "mansplaining," fineline challenged her publicly:
"Hi @Elle, I'd appreciate you replacing 'mansplain' with another term that isn't, you know, sexist as fuck. Sexism is frowned upon, and dare I say, not tolerated, at Noisebridge. Thanks for your understanding." — fineline, December 25, 2024 [archived]
"That is an interesting take on the term, @fineline. Most consider it an anti-sexist term used to help people who are out-of-line to understand that their behavior is falling into a misogynistic pattern..." — Elle, December 26, 2024 [archived]
Elle did not retract or replace the term.
Elle, who had just days earlier accused Wyatt of sexism for disagreeing about carbon fiber, now used a gendered slur against a man who forwarded community guidelines to her — and defended doing so.
A year after the incident, during a broader review of Elle's pattern, nthmost discovered the fabricated rule:
"Wow ok, so we all just blew past this 'Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences, not private texts' comment and didn't realize what a huge fucking problem this is.
This was never a rule. Never. Ever. Not once.
The rule was actually to use Restorative Communication. Which... this is very much not." — nthmost, December 2025
When confronted, Elle argued that "misapplication of policy" or "misunderstanding of policy" would be more accurate than "Policy Injection."
Stated as established fact, not personal interpretation
Elle said "Bravespace is where Noisebridge-ers work out differences, not private texts" — not "I believe" or "I was told" or "I think the policy is."
A genuine misunderstanding is typically expressed tentatively. Elle expressed certainty.
The "rule" was used to control Justin's behavior
Elle used this fabricated rule to:
Not a one-time error — a persistent assertion
In July 2025, Elle stated at a Tuesday meeting:
"this is an issue for bravespace not DMs on messages" — Elle, Meeting Notes July 29, 2025
Seven months later, she's still asserting the same non-existent rule.
Elle never pointed to where she learned this "rule"
When someone genuinely misunderstands a policy, they can usually explain where they got that impression. Elle never cited a source because no source exists.
A comprehensive search of 911 meeting notes (2007-2025) and all Discord logs found zero evidence that this rule was ever established. Elle herself is the sole source.
The "rule" reversed when it served a different purpose
| December 2024 | December 2025 |
|---|---|
| "Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences, not private texts." | "Would this private convo work better in DMs?" (Said when losing a public argument about Tuesday scheduling) |
A genuine policy belief would be applied consistently. Elle's "rule" changed based on what served her in the moment.
If Elle had engaged with Justin's private DM:
Instead, Elle:
This incident reveals Elle's operating pattern with unusual clarity:
| Element | How It Appeared |
|---|---|
| Policy Injection | Fabricated "Bravespace not private texts" rule |
| Rejection of De-escalation | Ignored conciliatory DM, demanded public confrontation |
| Escalating Demands | 48 hours → 1 week → "leave me alone" |
| Ignoring Counter-Evidence | Anh said they weren't offended; Elle continued anyway |
| Identity Weaponization | "Mansplain" used when challenged on policy |
| Defense When Caught | "Misunderstanding" — but evidence shows intentional use |
This case is about systematic manipulation of community process. Elle didn't violate rules — she fabricated them. She didn't deceive — she controlled the frame. The damage wasn't from external threats but from internal exploitation of trust.