Supplementary analysis of conflict escalation during Tuesday meetings
These incidents are documented separately from the Discord quantitative analysis to maintain apples-to-apples comparison. The Discord analysis examines written messages that can be systematically classified using Glasl stages. Weekly meeting incidents, documented in meeting notes and witness accounts, demonstrate that the escalation patterns observed in Discord also occur in face-to-face Tuesday meetings.
Why separate documentation matters:
Tuesday meetings at Noisebridge follow a structured template with designated sections for reports, announcements, and discussion items. Multiple incidents document Elle escalating conflicts during these meetings by:
Major escalation incidents during Tuesday meetings
Financial Report, Discussion Items
July 2025 - December 2025
Someone called "noname" got into a heated argument with a patent lawyer upstairs at Noisebridge earlier in the week. The situation was handled immediately:
The incident was resolved. That should have been the end of it.
At the Tuesday meeting, despite the incident being handled, Elle insisted on continuing to discuss it:
When Loren tried to de-escalate and move toward productive next steps:
Elle pushed back:
Loren explicitly flagged the danger of Elle's approach:
This incident demonstrates several patterns also visible in Discord:
During the same gratuitous Noname discussion, Elle used Cloud as a rhetorical prop without consent. This occurred just 3 months after Elle acknowledged the disengagement with Cloud (April 2025).
Cloud explicitly connected being used as a prop to the gratuitous noname escalation:
This mirrors the Ally Recruitment / Triangulation pattern documented in Discord:
The Tuesday meeting template includes a designated Financial Report section where the treasurer provides an update based on what they currently know. This is the treasurer's time to report, not a Q&A session.
Loren's situation:
During the designated Treasurer Report time, after Loren provided the basic update (18k in checking, 48k in savings, $21,000 from GoFundMe), Elle interjected:
Analysis: This is about Elle's fundraising strategy, not Loren's treasurer report. This belongs in a separate discussion item or outside the meeting.
At hour 2.6 of the meeting, LX raised a discussion item about financial reporting. Loren acknowledged the constraint:
Note: Loren explicitly says "we should pursue offline" because they're 2.6 hours into the meeting.
After a grueling 3+ hour meeting, nthmost expressed frustration:
Then the critical exchange:
| Speaker | Statement | Line |
|---|---|---|
| nthmost | "fundraising is something that interrupts a lot. not sure which way it goes." | 420 |
| Elle | "there is a boundary between the treasurer's report and the fundraising efforts." | 422 |
| nthmost | "Many people talked about fundraising efforts during the treasurers report." | 424 |
| Elle | "there is not time for everyone to come into this meeting to miss the items. we always want a discussion on the bitcoin." | 426 |
| nthmost | "might be a good point to make a wiki page about the finances." | 428 |
| Elle | "no more talking about bitcoin." | 430 |
Notice the whiplash:
So there's a boundary... except when Elle wants to discuss bitcoin during the treasurer's report? And then no boundary when she shuts down the conversation she created?
On December 10, 2025 at 19:37 UTC, Elle posted to #general:
Elle asks "how can we not have meetings like that ever again" but doesn't acknowledge:
She frames herself as a victim of the long meeting, not a contributor to its length.
LX also contributed to the meeting's length with a "one more thing" moment. But notice the difference:
| LX's Behavior | Elle's Behavior |
|---|---|
| Acknowledged: "I apologize on insisting on the 'one more thing'" | Asked: "How can we not have meetings like that ever again?" |
| Explained motivation: "let's not make finances take as long in future" | Claimed: "there is a boundary" while demanding bitcoin discussion |
| Accepted feedback: "that was kind of a 'read the room' moment" | Shut down conversation: "no more talking about bitcoin" |
| Took accountability for impact | Deflected accountability onto meeting structure |
Both contributed to a long meeting. Only one took responsibility.
This incident demonstrates patterns also visible in Discord:
This incident occurred in Discord but directly related to Tuesday meeting scheduling. It demonstrates the Policy Injection pattern documented in Discord analysis, but in the context of weekly meeting coordination.
Ms. Judy, who actually runs the Writers Workshop on Tuesdays:
When overruled by the actual stakeholder, Elle suggested:
Notice: This is the opposite of her fabricated "Bravespace rule" that private conversations aren't allowed. The "rule" changes based on what serves Elle in the moment.
This is a clear example of the Policy Injection pattern:
| Pattern | Discord Evidence | Weekly Meeting Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Gratuitous Escalation | Fabricated "Bravespace rule" to force public confrontation with Justin Morrison | Continuing Noname discussion despite incident being resolved and multiple de-escalation attempts |
| Policy Injection | "Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences, not private texts" (never a rule) | "All Tuesdays are bad nights to have events at sewing" (contradicted by actual stakeholder) |
| Triangulation | Nicole DM'd Wyatt "on Elle's behalf" without Wyatt's consent | Used Cloud as rhetorical prop ("two women in the room") without Cloud's consent |
| Public Pressure | Forcing Justin's private DM into public Bravespace discussion | Extended interrogation of Loren during his designated Financial Report time |
| Deflection | Asking "how can we fix this" without acknowledging role in creating problem | "How can we not have meetings like that ever again?" without acknowledging contribution to 3+ hour meeting |
| Contradictory Boundaries | Claims "there is a boundary" (public not private), then later suggests DMs when losing argument | Claims boundary between treasurer report and fundraising, then demands bitcoin discussion, then shuts it down |
These incidents demonstrate that the escalation patterns are not artifacts of digital communication.
Common defenses for Discord escalation include:
Weekly meeting incidents eliminate these explanations:
The same patterns appear in both contexts, indicating they are behavioral patterns, not communication artifacts.
Weekly meetings provide additional escalation opportunities not present in Discord:
While we cannot create direct quantitative comparison with Discord data (different documentation methods), we can classify the documented meeting incidents by Glasl stage:
| Incident | Date | Primary Glasl Stage | Escalation Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noname discussion continuation | July 29, 2025 | Stage 4-5 (Coalition building toward scapegoating) | Gratuitous escalation, rejection of de-escalation |
| Cloud as rhetorical prop | July 29, 2025 | Stage 4 (False coalition building) | Triangulation without consent |
| Treasurer Report interrogation | December 9, 2025 | Stage 5 (Indirect character attack via public pressure) | Public scrutiny, role undermining |
| "All Tuesdays are bad" scheduling | December 10, 2025 | Stage 3-4 (Policy injection) | Fabricated rules, process manipulation |
This analysis maintains methodological rigor by separating meeting incidents from the Discord quantitative analysis:
Strengths:
Limitations:
Strengths:
Limitations:
Meeting incidents are documented through:
The meeting incidents strengthen the Discord analysis by:
Four major incidents over 5 months (July-December 2025) demonstrate:
Mixing Discord quantitative data with meeting witness accounts would create false equivalence between:
Separate documentation preserves the validity of both analyses while showing pattern consistency.
Face-to-face interaction reveals:
These dynamics confirm the patterns are behavioral, not communication artifacts.