Fabricating Rules to Control Behavior
Policy Injection is the practice of asserting non-existent rules as if they were established community norms, then using these fabricated "policies" to control others' behavior. This pattern is particularly effective in consensus-based organizations where members often defer to those who appear to know the rules.
State the fabricated rule as settled fact, using definitive language
The fabricator speaks with absolute certainty, using phrases like "the rule is" or "this is how we do things." There's no hedging, no "I think," no invitation to verify.
"Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences, not private texts." — Elle, December 21, 2024
This was stated as established policy. It was not.
Target people who don't know the actual rules
Policy injection works best on newcomers or those unfamiliar with the specific domain. People who don't know the actual rules can't contradict fabricated ones.
"Again, Tuesdays are bad nights to have events at sewing. All Tuesdays. It is the night for the Writing Group and the weekly meetings." — Elle to a newcomer, December 2025
The newcomer (aether) was organizing her first sewing circle and had no way to know this wasn't a real scheduling conflict.
Once accepted, the fabricated rule becomes "how we've always done it"
If no one challenges the fabricated rule, it becomes de facto policy. Each unchallenged assertion strengthens the false precedent.
"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." — nthmost, December 2025 (one year later)
Apply the opposite "rule" when it serves a different purpose
The fabricated rule serves the fabricator's immediate goal, not any principle. When the goal changes, so can the rule.
| 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) |
Fabricated rule forcing public conflict over private resolution
"Bravespace is where Noisebridgers work out differences, not private texts. I have not responded to your private text. I ignored it." — Elle, December 21, 2024
"Also @Elle I did not consent for you to respond to my DM with a post here, and since you excluded it, I will reproduce it below" — justinmorrison
"The rule was actually to use Restorative Communication. Which... this is very much not." — nthmost, December 2025
This fabricated rule achieved two goals simultaneously:
Justin had attempted to de-escalate privately. Elle manufactured a "rule" to block that attempt and create a public spectacle instead.
Fabricated scheduling conflict to block newcomer event
"Again, Tuesdays are bad nights to have events at sewing. All Tuesdays. It is the night for the Writing Group and the weekly meetings." — Elle, December 10, 2025
When Elan went directly to Ms. Judy, who actually runs the SF Writers Workshop:
"Sorry I missed you tonight! I'm one of the four moderaters for the SF Writers Workshop. Our only real issue would be if we couldn't hear our writers read their work aloud. In other words, if you were willing to keep the sewing room door CLOSED, our two groups probably wouldn't interfere with each other... Would love to meet with you and chat" — Ms. Judy the Mad Jotter
A newcomer trying to organize her first event was told "all Tuesdays are bad" — a sweeping prohibition that would have blocked the sewing circle entirely. The person with actual authority saw no conflict.
Claimed personal declarations equal community policy
"If I say something is unsafe, then it's unsafe." — Elle (per EigenVexer's account)
"I replied that this isn't how things work here." — EigenVexer
This is policy injection in its purest form: claiming that one's personal judgment automatically becomes binding community policy. It bypasses any need for consensus, evidence, or even agreement.
Misused safety tool for punitive "consequences"
"Ask To Leave Policy: If someone behaves in a way that makes you feel unsafe or attempts at diffusing an argument fail and it escalates, you can ask a person to leave." — Noisebridge Wiki
"She said she felt unsafe and would like peace for a while. Today she mentioned it was about consequences. 'There had to be consequences. Otherwise, she may have done the same thing, again...'" — zoda (mediator)
"I've informed her that's not what Ask To Leave is for and have said this feels like an abuse of process." — zoda
ATL is a safety tool. Using it for "consequences" transforms it into a weapon. During active mediation, this abuse was particularly egregious — it punished someone who was cooperating with the mediation process.
Fabricated scheduling conflict escalated through repetition
December 2, 2025: "Tuesday is an iffy night since the writer's circle meets that night..." — Elle
December 10, 2025: "Again, Tuesdays are not a good night for events in sewing..." — Elle
December 10, 2025 (8 minutes later): "Again, Tuesdays are bad nights to have events at sewing. All Tuesdays. It is the night for the Writing Group and the weekly meetings." — Elle
"I'm one of the four moderaters for the SF Writers Workshop. Our only real issue would be if we couldn't hear our writers read their work aloud. In other words, if you were willing to keep the sewing room door CLOSED, our two groups probably wouldn't interfere with each other." — Ms. Judy the Mad Jotter (Writers Workshop moderator)
A newcomer (aether) trying to organize her first event was told "All Tuesdays are bad" — a sweeping prohibition that would have blocked the sewing circle entirely. When aether went directly to the actual authority (Ms. Judy), there was no conflict — just a request to close the door.
The fabricated rule was contradicted by the person with actual authority.
"would this private convo work better in DMs?" — Elle, December 11, 2025
After aether and Judy resolved the issue without her "policy," Elle suggests moving to DMs — ironic given her stated position that conflicts should be in public channels.
Single-member veto power stated as established policy
"Also, if one member says no to donations larger than a microwave, than it is simply no, unless the member changes their mind or unless the item is brought to the Tuesday meeting and small c consensus is reached in its favor. That is our policy." — Elle, July 23, 2025, #donations
By framing a preference as "our policy," Elle could block donations unilaterally while appearing to follow established rules.
Using disengagement, ATL, and mediation as punishment tools
| Tool | Intended Purpose |
|---|---|
| Disengagement | Cooling off period for de-escalation |
| Ask To Leave | Safety from immediate threat |
| Mediation | Mutual resolution and understanding |
| Tool | Elle's Use |
|---|---|
| Disengagement | Trap where existence in shared space = violation |
| Ask To Leave | Punishment ("consequences") for past behavior |
| Mediation | Requirement imposed on others; Elle controls terms |
Justin offered mediation with a third party. Elle rejected and escalated.
"Today she mentioned it was about consequences. 'There had to be consequences. Otherwise, she may have done the same thing, again...'" — zoda (mediator), reporting Elle's words
"I've informed her that's not what Ask To Leave is for and have said this feels like an abuse of process." — zoda
Elle filed ATL during active mediation, while Cloud was cooperating with the process.
"I found mediation for Elle and Cloud extremely difficult for reasons hard to explain. I'm forfeiting mediation responsibilities." — zoda
See: Mediator Burnout
Based on analysis of multiple incidents, Elle's policy injection follows these patterns:
Soft language ("iffy") escalates to absolutes ("All Tuesdays") through repetition
Example: Sewing room Tuesday incident
Each repetition adds certainty and scope without providing new evidence or authority.
Implies listener didn't understand, not that they might disagree
"Again" frames the issue as comprehension failure rather than legitimate disagreement. It positions Elle as patient teacher and the listener as slow student.
This rhetorical move makes it harder to push back without seeming obstinate.
"That is our policy" / "The rule is" — stated as facts, not preferences
Examples:
A genuine misunderstanding is typically expressed tentatively. Elle expresses certainty.
Speaks as if she has authority to declare policy when she doesn't
Noisebridge operates on do-ocracy and consensus. No individual has unilateral policy-making authority. Yet Elle repeatedly asserts:
Never points to wiki, meeting notes, or documented source
When someone genuinely misunderstands a policy, they can usually explain where they got that impression. Elle never cites sources because no sources exist.
A comprehensive search of 911 meeting notes (2007-2025) and Discord logs found zero evidence that the "bravespace not DMs" rule was ever established. Elle herself is the sole source.
When stakeholders disagree, deflect rather than acknowledge error
Example: When Ms. Judy (Writers Workshop) contradicted Elle's "All Tuesdays are bad" claim, Elle's response was:
"would this private convo work better in DMs?"
Suggests moving the conversation private rather than acknowledging the actual stakeholder saw no conflict.
Posts lectures to public channels without naming names
Rather than addressing issues directly, Elle posts to public channels (like #accessibility) without naming the people involved. This forces others to either:
"Subtweeting" allows indirect prosecution while avoiding direct accountability.
When asked to discuss openly, deny connection then continue anyway
Example: Accessibility incident
Multiple witnesses note Elle's tone makes people "feel unwelcome"
"I felt that your tone was out of proportion to the situation, and might leave her feeling unwelcome" — EigenVexer
Being technically correct doesn't justify making people feel unwelcome through tone and manner.
Uses substantively valid concerns as vehicles for asserting personal authority
Accessibility matters. Safety matters. But using these valid concerns to claim unilateral authority ("If I say it's unsafe, it's unsafe") transforms advocacy into control.
The substance becomes harder to discuss constructively because disagreeing with the authority claim appears to oppose the underlying value.
| Date | Channel | Claimed "Policy" | Actual Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 23, 2024 | #bravespace | "Bravespace is where NBers work out differences, not private texts" | No such rule exists |
| Dec 23, 2024 | #bravespace | Public channels are "proper" for conflict resolution | Not established policy |
| Jul 23, 2025 | #donations | One member can veto donations | Not documented policy |
| Jul 29, 2025 | Meeting | "this is an issue for bravespace not DMs" | No such rule exists |
| Nov 25, 2025 | In-person | "If I say something is unsafe, then it's unsafe" | Not how NB works (per EigenVexer) |
| Dec 2-10, 2025 | #sewing | "All Tuesdays are bad" for sewing events | Contradicted by actual stakeholder |
In a consensus-based, do-ocracy like Noisebridge, trust is the operating system. When someone fabricates rules:
"There's a huge difference between saying something like 'we should talk about this in bravespace' and 'according to Noisebridge rules you cannot privately text me.' You could have said the former and had plausible deniability. It's the latter that makes me really, really concerned." — nthmost
"In this case, though, you did manufacture the rule in order to escalate conflict. It wasn't at all necessary to insist someone talk about this conflict in a public forum. You're literally the only person who's ever tried to name an exclusionary rule as if it's just 'how Noisebridge does things.'" — nthmost
| Red Flag | Example |
|---|---|
| Absolute language with no hedging | "The rule is..." / "This is how we..." |
| No citation to wiki or documented source | Rules asserted from memory alone |
| Rule conveniently serves speaker's immediate goal | Forces public confrontation when speaker wants audience |
| Rule later inverted when convenient | "Use public channels" → "Take this to DMs" |
| Actual authorities contradict the claim | Ms. Judy had no issue with Tuesday events |