Pattern 2: Policy Injection

The Pattern

How It Works

The Escalation Mechanism

• Transforms preference into rule: "I want this public" becomes "rules require this be public"
• Invokes community authority: Opposition now equals violating community norms
• Creates verification burden: Opponent must prove the rule doesn't exist
• Delegitimizes pushback: Questioning becomes "not understanding how Noisebridge works"

Example: "Bravespace Rule" (December 2024)

The Conflict

Original issue (Stage 2): Disagreement with Justin Morrison about fundraising letter approach.

Justin's Private DM

Elle's Public Response with Policy Injection

Justin's Objection

The Reality

How Policy Injection Works

Why This Escalates Unnecessarily

1. Forces Public Confrontation

Private conflicts can often be resolved through direct communication where both parties can adjust positions without public record. Policy injection eliminates this path by requiring public discussion.

2. Creates Permanent Record

Public conflicts create permanent records that make it harder for either party to save face or adjust their position. Once positions are public, retreat becomes costly.

3. Invokes Institutional Authority

By framing personal preference as community rule, the injector gains procedural advantage. The opponent must now argue against what appears to be established norms.

4. Shifts Burden of Proof

The opponent must prove the rule doesn't exist, which is difficult. How do you prove a negative? Where do you look to verify that a rule was never made?

5. Delegitimizes Opposition

Opposing the fabricated rule makes it appear you're opposing community norms rather than having a legitimate disagreement with one person.

Real vs. Fabricated Rules

Selective Application Pattern

The Bravespace "Rule" - Selective Application

When Public Works Against Elle

When Elle is Overruled Publicly

The Pattern

• When Elle wants something public: "Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences"
• When Elle wants something private: "Would this work better in DMs?"
• When Elle is held accountable publicly: "I'm tired of being dragged into Bravespace"

Conclusion: This isn't a rule Elle follows - it's a tool Elle uses when advantageous.

Community Impact

Governance Erosion

• Fabricated rules cited as precedent: Future community members may believe the false rule
• Confusion about actual policies: Hard to know what's real vs. fabricated
• Procedural advantage for rule-makers: Those who fabricate rules gain power
• Trust erosion: Community members question whether cited policies are real

Contributor Impact

• Justin Morrison: Disengaged from fundraising after public Bravespace posting
• Chilling effect: Others may be less likely to engage if conflicts become automatically public

How to Counter This Pattern

If You're the Target

1. Request documentation: "Can you point me to where this rule is documented?"
2. Ask others: "Has anyone else heard of this rule?"
3. Distinguish preference from policy: "That sounds like your preference, not community policy."
4. Propose verification: "Let's check the wiki/meeting notes together."

If You're a Bystander

1. Verify the rule: Check wiki, meeting notes, established documentation
2. Note inconsistent application: "I've seen conflicts resolved privately before."
3. Distinguish norm from rule: "Some people prefer public discussion, but it's not required."
4. Support alternative paths: "Private resolution is also valid at Noisebridge."

For Community Governance

1. Document actual rules: Keep clear wiki documentation of consensus decisions
2. Challenge fabrication: When false rules are cited, correct the record publicly
3. Educate on process: Explain how rules are actually made at Noisebridge
4. Protect flexibility: Resist pressure to formalize everything (real rules vs. flexible norms)

What Makes This Stage-Skipping

Normal Conflict Progression (Stages 1-3)

Stage 1: Disagreement emerges
    "I think we should approach fundraising differently"

Stage 2: Private or public debate
    Direct message: "Can we discuss this?"
    Or public channel: "What do others think?"
    (Both are valid)

Stage 3: Action taken
    Agree to disagree, or find compromise
    Both paths preserve relationship

Policy Injection (Skip to Stage 3-4)

Stage 2: Disagreement emerges
    Justin sends private DM to de-escalate

[SKIP - Fabricate rule forcing public]

Stage 3: Unilateral action
    "Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences"
    Force conflict public, ignore private attempt

Stage 4: Coalition building
    Invoke "Noisebridgers" to suggest community backing
    Create appearance of institutional support