Comprehensive examination of Elle's conflict escalation patterns, character attacks, and community impact
The Core Pattern: Stage-Skipping
Key Finding: Elle exhibits a systematic pattern of stage-skipping — bypassing resolution-possible stages (1-3) and entering conflicts directly at Stage 4-6 (Win-Lose phase). This pattern repeats across multiple unrelated conflicts and distinguishes Elle from all other analyzed community members.
Data Note: All numbers are from manual review removing false positives and excluding non-conflict contexts. Raw automated counts showed ~87% inflation due to neutral references and educational content.
Average Escalation Stage
4.2
Highest of all analyzed users (cleaned)
Maximum Stage Reached
6
Threats/Ultimatums (after cleaning)
Win-Lose Messages
15
37.5% of verified conflict messages (7.5x more than next user)
Character Attacks
10
10x more than any other user
Entry Point Comparison
User
Typical Entry Stage
Pattern
Elle
Stage 4-5 (Coalitions/Attacks)
Bypasses Stages 1-3, enters at Win-Lose phase
Cloud
Stage 1-3 (Hardening/Debate)
Classic progression over 1 year before escalating
Wyatt
Stage 1-2 (Hardening/Debate)
Defensive only; seeks de-escalation
Others
Stage 1-3 (Hardening/Debate)
Normal conflict progression
Stage 5 Evidence: Character Attacks
What This Shows: Character attacks are Stage 5 behaviors that indicate Elle has bypassed Stages 1-3. While other users have 0-1 verified attacks, Elle has 10 verified character attacks across multiple unrelated conflicts, demonstrating a pattern of entering conflicts at high stages.
Against Cloud (4 instances)
ElleJuly 16, 2024
"Your accusations of dishonesty, and worse are very disturbing"
ElleJuly 30, 2025
"I find Cloud's obsession with me disturbing"
ElleAugust 1, 2025
"I find these regular outbursts by Cloud to be attention seeking, harassing and disturbing"
ElleAugust 1, 2025
"Learning that she is going behind my back to gossip and complain makes me feel hurt by her slander"
Against Wyatt/CNC Group (2 instances)
ElleJuly 15, 2024
"attacking both me and [user] for speaking the truth about the dangers...threatening the health of everyone"
ElleJuly 15, 2024
"Both [user] and I posted the MSDS for the materials being discussed, and we were both ignored. There's some blatant sexism protruding here and it's not a good look for Noisebridge."
Against Other Community Members (4 instances)
ElleMarch 7, 2024
"All this whining, cussing and bullying is too much!"
ElleFebruary 18, 2025
"Why is he still gaslighting Noisebridge on discord?"
ElleSeptember 19, 2024
"bullying someone into doing things is also unacceptable"
ElleOctober 29, 2024
"piling on someone expressing their needs leads to intimidation, bullying"
Escalation Timeline: Cloud/Elle Conflict
Demonstrates Entry Point Difference: This conflict shows the stark contrast between Elle's stage-skipping pattern and Cloud's classic Glasl progression. Elle enters at Stage 5 (character attacks), while Cloud starts at Stage 3 (disengagement) and only escalates to Stage 5 after a year of failed boundary attempts.
Stage Entry Comparison
Date
Elle's Stage
Cloud's Stage
Pattern
July 2024
Stage 5 (character attacks)
Stage 3 (disengagement)
Elle bypasses Stages 1-3
July 2024 - April 2025
Maintains Stage 4-5
Stays at Stage 3
Cloud attempts de-escalation 5 times
August 2025
Stage 6 (ATL during mediation)
Stage 5 (harassment complaint)
Cloud escalates only after 1 year of failure
Detailed Timeline
July 2024
Stage 5 (Elle): Character attacks on Cloud and Wyatt during CNC/carbon fiber conflict
Stage 3 (Cloud): First disengage request
April 2025
Stage 3 (Cloud): Formal disengage requests
Elle acknowledges and agrees to honor disengagement
July 2025
Cloud claims breach of disengagement
Stage 5 (Cloud): Escalates to harassment complaint after 5 disengage requests over 1 year
August 2025
Stage 6 (Elle): Issues ATL against Cloud during active mediation
Elle's rationale: "There had to be consequences. Otherwise, she may have done the same thing, again..."
September 2025
Mediator (zoda) forfeits mediation role
Status: Conflict remains in Win-Lose phase (Stage 6) with both parties having issued formal escalations
Stage 4 Evidence: Coalition Building (Verified)
What This Shows: After manual review removing false positives, Elle has 2 verified instances of identity-based coalition building. These behaviors demonstrate how Elle enters conflicts at Stage 4 instead of Stage 1-2, using identity-based framing (sexism accusations) to build coalitions and delegitimize opposing views rather than engaging in dialogue.
Data Cleaning: Raw automated count was 55 instances. Manual review reduced this to 2 verified by excluding ~40 neutral "noisebridgers" references and ~31 educational ATL/86 process explanations that were not coalition-building in personal conflicts.
How Coalition-Building Skips Early Stages
By framing disagreements as identity violations (sexism, ableism), Elle transforms conflicts from:
Stage 1-2 (dialogue): "We disagree about technical safety" → Stage 4 (coalition): "This is sexism, women at NB are being ignored"
Individual debate: Two people with different views → Group dynamics: "Women" vs. "sexist person"
Resolution through facts: Technical discussion → Resolution through social pressure: Identity accusations
Examples of Identity-Based Coalition Building
Example 1: Carbon Fiber / Wyatt (July 2024)
"Both [user] and I posted the MSDS for the materials being discussed, and we were both ignored. There's some blatant sexism protruding here and it's not a good look for Noisebridge."
Context: Wyatt had not responded within 24 hours to a technical safety discussion.
Wyatt's response: "I wasn't intentionally ignoring it. I actually just hadn't seen it. I'd also appreciate if you didn't call me sexist for not replying to your message within a day of you sending it."
Escalation mechanism: Transforms a delayed response to a technical question into an accusation of sexism, reframing peer disagreement as a moral failure.
Example 2: Romy Incident (May 29, 2025)
"Reducing the kick ass cis-gendered women (like myself!) to just romantic objects for randum unnamed men is false, sexist, judgemental and reductive."
"I am going to demand you come offf NB discord for 24 hours Romy for making sexist dismissive comments about other women."
Context: Romy (a woman) posted: "There are a lot of women at nb dating Noisebridge guys but the ones doing hacking and creativity are often the kickass trans women ❤️"
What happened: Elle issued escalating messages over 40 minutes, culminating in a demand for a 24-hour ban. No one questioned Elle's authority to make this demand. Romy went silent for nearly 4 months (no messages until September 18, 2025).
Pattern Analysis
These instances demonstrate a consistent pattern where:
Identity categories are invoked to reframe substantive disagreements
Opposing views are delegitimized as moral/identity violations rather than differing perspectives
Coalitions are built around the identity framing ("women at NB" vs. accused)
Resolution becomes impossible as the conflict shifts from substance to character
What This Shows: Elle has 3 verified instances of unilateral punishment demands, exhibiting a pattern of self-appointed enforcer behavior. These actions jump directly to Stage 6 (threats and ultimatums), bypassing all dialogue stages (1-3) and even skipping coalition-building (4) and character attacks (5), going straight to consequences.
Data Cleaning: Raw automated count was 34 instances. Manual review reduced this to 3 verified by excluding educational process explanations and technical false positives, retaining only unilateral punishment demands in personal conflicts.
This completely bypasses opportunities for dialogue, face-saving, and resolution.
Example 1: Romy 24-Hour Ban (May 29, 2025)
The Incident
Romy's original comment: "There are a lot of women at nb dating Noisebridge guys but the ones doing hacking and creativity are often the kickass trans women ❤️"
Elle's escalating response (over 40 minutes):
Initial pushback on the characterization
Framing as "sexist, judgemental and reductive"
Final demand: "I am going to demand you come offf NB discord for 24 hours Romy for making sexist dismissive comments about other women."
Community Response
Elle moved the discussion to Bravespace, framing it as Romy being "offensive"
Elan agreed Romy's comment was "needlessly antagonistic"
No one questioned Elle's authority to "demand" a 24-hour ban
Romy never responded in Bravespace
Measurable Impact
Romy went silent for nearly 4 months - no messages until September 18, 2025
Glasl Classification
Stage 3 → Stage 6 jump:
Stage 3: Unilateral action replacing dialogue ("I am going to demand")
Stage 6: Issuing punishment/consequences without formal process
Example 2: ATL During Mediation (August 2025)
The Incident
Context: Cloud and Elle were in active mediation with zoda as mediator
Cloud's action: Filed harassment complaint after year of failed disengagement requests
Elle's response: Issued ATL against Cloud
Elle's Stated Rationale (per zoda)
"There had to be consequences. Otherwise, she may have done the same thing, again…"
The Problem
Intended purpose of ATL: Emergency safety response when de-escalation fails
Elle's use: Punishment during active mediation process
Impact
Undermined the mediation process
Used safety mechanism as a weapon for punishment
Mediator (zoda) eventually forfeited role, citing inability to continue
Pattern: Self-Appointed Enforcer Role
This pattern creates a dynamic where:
Elle's enforcement actions go unquestioned by the community
Targets face social pressure to comply or withdraw
The community normalizes unilateral punitive action
Dissent becomes increasingly risky as the pattern reinforces itself
Additional Conflicts
Accessibility Channel Incident (November 2025)
The Incident
Elle raised accessibility concerns about someone working on the patio.
EigenVexer's Response
"I felt that your tone was out of proportion to the situation, and might leave her feeling unwelcome."
"Later, you said you came to apologize. But then you told me 'If I say something is unsafe, then it's unsafe'. I replied that this isn't how things work here."
"I do not appreciate being repeatedly subtweeted like this."
Pattern Elements
Unilateral authority claim: "If I say something is unsafe, then it's unsafe"
Indirect communication: "Subtweeting" rather than direct dialogue
Stage-skipping: Framing concerns as absolute safety issues rather than starting with dialogue
Community Impact: Contributors Lost or Disengaged
Contributor
Impact
Context
Romy
4-month silence (May-Sept 2025)
After Elle's 24-hour ban demand; never responded in Bravespace
Wyatt
Considered leaving; didn't want to teach
After CNC/carbon fiber incident and sexism accusations
Justin Morrison
Disengaged from fundraising
After policy injection incident and public Bravespace posting
Selim
Disappeared from Spacebridge
Context of Elle-related conflict
Woman with motors
Left space shortly after incident
Details in source material
zoda (mediator)
Forfeited mediation role
Cloud/Elle conflict (September 2025); cited inability to continue
Pattern: The chilling effect is measurable. Contributors who challenge Elle's actions or become targets often withdraw from the community, go silent, or reduce their involvement. This creates an environment where questioning Elle's escalations carries social risk.
Resource Consumption
Mediator Time
zoda: Extensive mediation work on Cloud/Elle conflict, eventually forfeited role
cocomittens: Involved in mediation efforts
Elan: Administrative and mediation work across multiple Elle-related incidents
Community Education
nthmost: Spent "an hour" explaining context to LX after Elle's triangulation (characterizing "take a break from meetings" as "being ATLd")
Multiple Bravespace threads dedicated to Elle-related conflicts
Safety Council time addressing patterns
Governance Impact
Fabricated rules cited as precedent (e.g., "Bravespace rule" about no private messages)
Safety mechanisms undermined: ATL used as punishment rather than safety tool
EigenVexer proposed rule changes to prevent ATL abuse
Trust erosion: Good-faith participation questioned; private chat formed to discuss concerns
How Stage-Skipping Works: Analysis identified 8 distinct "moves" that Elle uses to bypass resolution-possible stages and jump directly to higher escalation levels. Each pattern shows a specific mechanism for skipping Stages 1-3 and entering at Stages 4-6.
These patterns are not personality traits — they are specific, repeatable escalation tactics that transform conflicts from dialogue-based (Stages 1-3) to coalition-based and punitive (Stages 4-6).
Elle's conflict pattern is not merely "difficult personality" — it is a systematic escalation approach that consistently bypasses resolution-possible stages of conflict.