Glasl Conflict Escalation Analysis

Noisebridge Discord Community Analysis

A comprehensive quantitative analysis of conflict escalation patterns using Friedrich Glasl's 9-Stage Model

Analysis Date: December 2025 | Data through: December 2025

Executive Summary

Data Note: After manual review removing false positives and excluding mediator/administrative documentation, the cleaned counts show Elle has 7.5x more Win-Lose escalation messages than the next highest personal conflict user (15 vs. 2) and 10x more verified character attacks (10 vs. 0-1 for others).
Key Finding: Elle escalates conflicts to higher Glasl stages significantly more rapidly and frequently than other community members, consistently bypassing resolution-possible stages and entering conflicts at Stage 4-6 (Win-Lose phase) while others start at Stage 1-3 (Win-Win phase).

Elle's Win-Lose Messages

15

37.5% of verified conflict messages (cleaned)

Verified Character Attacks

10

10x more than any other user

Max Stage Reached

6

Threats/Ultimatums (after cleaning)

Messages Analyzed

125K

Across all Discord channels

What is Glasl's Model?

Friedrich Glasl's 9-stage conflict escalation model maps how conflicts intensify through three phases. Normal conflict resolution happens in Stages 1-3. Escalating beyond Stage 3 bypasses opportunities for dialogue and resolution.

Phase Stages Description Resolution Possible?
Win-Win 1-3 Hardening → Debate → Actions Not Words ✓ Yes - Rational discussion possible
Win-Lose 4-6 Coalitions → Character Attacks → Threats ⚠ Difficult - Self-interest dominates
Lose-Lose 7-9 Limited Destruction → Fragmentation → Mutual Destruction ✗ No - Destruction is the goal
Why Stage-Skipping Matters: When someone bypasses Stages 1-3 and enters conflicts directly at Stages 4-6, they eliminate opportunities for dialogue and resolution. This forces conflicts into the Win-Lose or Lose-Lose phases where damage is harder to repair.

Escalation Propensity: The Core Finding

How Users Enter and Progress Through Conflicts

User Typical Entry Stage Escalation Pattern Resolution Approach
Elle Stage 4-5
(Coalitions/Attacks)
Stage-skipping: Bypasses Stages 1-3, enters at Win-Lose phase Maintains high stages; rarely de-escalates
Cloud Stage 1-3
(Hardening/Debate)
Classic progression: Stage 3 → Stage 5 only after 1 year of failed attempts Multiple de-escalation attempts before escalating
Wyatt Stage 1-2
(Hardening/Debate)
Defensive only: Responds to accusations but doesn't initiate escalation Seeks procedural clarity and de-escalation
Others Stage 1-3
(Hardening/Debate)
Normal progression: Start low, escalate only when necessary Resolve at early stages when possible

Stage Distribution Comparison (Cleaned Manual Review)

Critical Pattern: After manual review removing false positives and excluding mediator documentation, Elle has 7.5x more Win-Lose escalation messages than the next highest user in personal conflicts (15 vs. 2).
User Stage 1-3
(Win-Win)
Stage 4-6
(Win-Lose)
Stage 7-9
(Lose-Lose)
Win-Lose % Pattern
Elle 25 (62.5%) 15 (37.5%) 0 (0%) 37.5% Initiating escalation, 10 verified character attacks
Cloud 13 (86.7%) 2 (13.3%) 0 (0%) 13.3% Defensive only, 1 character attack after year of failed boundaries
Wyatt 7 (70.0%) 3 (30.0%) 0 (0%) 30.0% Defensive responses, 0 character attacks
coreyfro 4 (57.1%) 3 (42.9%) 0 (0%) 42.9% Systemic policy focus, not interpersonal conflict
zoda 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 33.3% Mixed: 1 personal conflict + mediator work
Loren 4 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0% Infrastructure focus, minimal conflict
fineline 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0% Reduced engagement, minimal conflict
Elan* EXCLUDED: Mediator/administrator role - including creates false equivalence between documentation and personal attacks

*Elan's raw counts (145 Stage 4-6) were almost entirely mediator/administrative documentation, not personal conflict. Cleaned counts show 0 Win-Lose personal conflict messages.

The Stage-Skipping Pattern

Analysis identified 8 recurring escalation "moves" that Elle uses to skip early conflict resolution stages and jump directly to higher escalation levels:

1. Identity Reframing

Stage 2 → 4-5

The Skip: Bypasses debate (Stage 2) by transforming disagreement into identity-based accusation.

Effect: Conflict becomes about character (sexism, ableism) rather than the original issue, forcing it into Win-Lose phase.

Example: Technical carbon fiber safety discussion → "blatant sexism protruding here"

2. Policy Injection

Stage 2 → 3-4

The Skip: Bypasses dialogue by fabricating rules that require public escalation.

Effect: Creates procedural requirement for conflict to remain public and escalated.

Example: "Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences, not private texts" (no such rule exists)

3. Mechanism Weaponization

Stage 3 → 6

The Skip: Bypasses all dialogue and debate stages by immediately using formal mechanisms as punishment.

Effect: Forces conflict into threats/ultimatums phase, eliminating resolution opportunities.

Example: Issuing ATL during active mediation as "consequences"

→ View all 8 escalation patterns with detailed analysis

Quantitative Evidence of Escalation Propensity

1. Higher Average Escalation Stage (Cleaned Data)

Elle's Average

4.2

Highest among all analyzed users (cleaned)

Community Average

~3.4

Most users stay in Stages 1-3

2. More Frequent High-Stage Behaviors (Cleaned Counts)

3. Rapid Escalation Timeline

Example: Cloud/Elle Conflict

July 2024

Elle enters at Stage 5: Character attacks on Cloud ("disturbing," "dishonest")

Cloud's Response

Cloud starts at Stage 3: Requests disengagement (dialogue-based approach)

July 2024 - April 2025

Cloud stays at Stage 3: 5 formal disengage requests over 10 months

August 2025

Elle escalates to Stage 6: Issues ATL during active mediation

→ Full timeline and escalation analysis

Community Impact of Rapid Escalation

Contributors Who Withdrew

Resource Consumption

Governance Impact

Why This Pattern Matters

Conflicts Grow Larger Than Necessary

By entering conflicts at Stage 4-6 instead of Stage 1-3, Elle eliminates opportunities for:

  • Dialogue and mutual understanding (Stage 1-2)
  • Face-saving resolution (Stage 2-3)
  • Private de-escalation (before public record)
  • Limited scope (before coalition-building)

Community Resources Are Consumed

High-stage conflicts require:

  • Formal mediation (multiple mediators involved)
  • Safety Council intervention
  • Extensive documentation and process
  • Long-term relationship damage repair (or permanent loss of contributors)

Governance Mechanisms Are Undermined

When Stage 4-6 behaviors become normalized:

  • Safety tools (ATL, disengagement) lose their protective function
  • Fabricated rules create confusion about actual community norms
  • Contributors lose trust in conflict resolution processes
  • Good-faith participation assumptions break down

Methodology

Two-Phase Quantitative Approach:

  1. Automated keyword matching across 125,220 Discord messages to identify escalation stage indicators for each Glasl stage
  2. Manual verification and data cleaning to filter false positives and exclude non-conflict contexts
Data Cleaning Process: After manual review, raw automated counts were reduced significantly by excluding:
  • Administrative/mediator documentation (e.g., Elan's 145 raw Stage 4-6 → 0 personal conflict)
  • Technical language false positives ("isolate," "attack," "ban" in non-conflict contexts)
  • Educational/process explanations
  • Defensive procedural questions
  • Quotes and historical references

This cleaning reduced Elle's Stage 4-6 count from 152 raw → 15 verified, while maintaining the 10x character attack disparity.

Data Sources:

→ Full methodology documentation

Navigation

Comparative Analysis

Side-by-side escalation patterns for all 8 users with stage distributions

Elle Deep Dive

Comprehensive analysis of Elle's stage-skipping pattern with timeline and examples

Escalation Patterns

Detailed breakdown of 8 recurring stage-skipping "moves" with Discord evidence

Source Material

Browse original Discord messages with full context and direct links