Conflict Escalation

This page describes how conflicts escalate, what interventions work at each stage, and when certain interventions become actively harmful. Based on Friedrich Glasl's model of conflict escalation, adapted for the Noisebridge community.

Why This Matters

Not all conflicts are the same. A disagreement about how to organize the electronics bench is fundamentally different from an ongoing pattern of harassment. The same intervention that resolves one can make the other worse.

Understanding where a conflict sits on the escalation ladder helps us choose the right response - and avoid responses that cause additional harm.

The Three Phases

Glasl's model identifies nine stages of conflict escalation, grouped into three phases:

🟢 Phase 1: Win-Win (Stages 1-3)

Both parties can still walk away satisfied. The conflict is about issues, not people. Self-resolution is possible. Mediation works well here.

🟡 Phase 2: Win-Lose (Stages 4-6)

The conflict has become personal. One party "winning" now requires the other to "lose." Coalition-building, reputation attacks, and threats emerge. Mediation becomes difficult and potentially harmful. Structural interventions needed.

🔴 Phase 3: Lose-Lose (Stages 7-9)

Parties will accept harm to themselves if it means harming the other more. Rationality is gone. Mediation is contraindicated. Only protective action works - AskToLeave, 86, or external authority.

The Nine Stages at Noisebridge

🟢 Phase 1: Win-Win

Stage 1: Tension

What it looks like: Differences of opinion emerge. Someone's frustrated about how a shared resource is being used. There's friction, but people are still talking and assuming good faith.

At Noisebridge: "I wish people would clean up the laser cutter after use." / "The 3D printer queue isn't fair."

What works: Direct conversation. Restorative Communication. Just talking it out. Most conflicts never leave this stage.

Stage 2: Debate

What it looks like: Positions harden. People start trying to "win" the argument rather than solve the problem. Black-and-white thinking emerges. But it's still about the issue.

At Noisebridge: Arguments at Tuesday meetings about policy. Heated Discord threads about how things should work.

What works: Facilitated discussion. Having someone neutral help structure the conversation. Mediation is effective here.

Stage 3: Actions Not Words

What it looks like: People stop talking and start acting unilaterally. Someone moves things without asking. Communication breaks down. Distrust grows, but empathy isn't completely gone.

At Noisebridge: Someone reorganizes a shared space without discussion. Passive-aggressive signage appears. People start avoiding each other.

What works: Mediation. Ask To Disengage to create space. Re-establishing communication channels.

---

🟡 Phase 2: Win-Lose

⚠️ Once conflict enters Phase 2, mediation becomes problematic. The conflict is no longer about issues - it's about people. Asking parties to "talk it out" may just provide a platform for further harm.

Stage 4: Coalitions

What it looks like: People start recruiting allies. "Sides" form. Rumors spread. The conflict becomes public and political. It's no longer about the original issue - it's about which faction wins.

At Noisebridge: Whisper campaigns. People lobbying others before meetings. "Have you heard what X did?" conversations that aren't aimed at resolution.

What works: Structural intervention. Separating parties. Clear boundaries. Mediation is risky - it can be weaponized by the side acting in bad faith.

Stage 5: Loss of Face

What it looks like: Personal attacks. Public humiliation attempts. The goal becomes exposing and discrediting the other person. Trust is completely gone.

At Noisebridge: Public callouts. Attempts to get someone banned based on character attacks rather than specific behaviors. Dredging up old incidents.

What works: Mediation is harmful here. It forces the targeted party to repeatedly engage with someone attacking them. Focus on protection: Ask To Disengage, AskToLeave, clear documentation.

Stage 6: Threat Strategies

What it looks like: Ultimatums. "If you don't do X, I'll do Y." Threats of consequences - social, legal, physical. Each threat triggers counter-threats.

At Noisebridge: Threatening to quit, to sue, to "expose" people, to call authorities. Demanding others be banned or else.

What works: Do not mediate. Threats are not a communication style to be worked with - they're a behavior to be stopped. AskToLeave. Documentation. If threats are credible, involve appropriate authorities.

---

🔴 Phase 3: Lose-Lose

🛑 In Phase 3, the only appropriate response is protective action. Mediation is not just ineffective - it's actively harmful. It delays necessary action and exposes community members to ongoing harm.

Stage 7: Limited Destruction

What it looks like: Parties accept damage to themselves if it means damaging the other more. "Winning" means making the other person lose bigger.

At Noisebridge: Sabotaging projects. Deliberately disrupting events. Breaking things to prove a point. Accepting being banned if it means causing maximum chaos first.

What works: Immediate removal. 86. Police if criminal behavior. There is nothing to mediate.

Stage 8: Destroying the Enemy

What it looks like: The goal is complete destruction of the other party - their reputation, their ability to participate, their wellbeing.

At Noisebridge: Sustained harassment campaigns. Attempting to destroy someone's career or relationships outside Noisebridge. Doxxing.

What works: Full community protection mode. 86. Legal action if appropriate. Support for targets. Mediation would be revictimization.

Stage 9: Together Into the Abyss

What it looks like: Self-destruction is acceptable if it takes the enemy down too. No concern for collateral damage.

At Noisebridge: Rare, but: destroying the organization itself to hurt specific people in it. Burning everything down.

What works: External intervention. Legal authorities. Complete separation. The community's survival takes precedence.

When Mediation Becomes Harmful

Mediation is a powerful tool - in the right circumstances. In the wrong circumstances, it causes additional harm:

❌ Do Not Mediate When:

• The conflict is in Phase 2 or 3 - The parties are no longer trying to solve a problem; one or both are trying to win or destroy
• There's a clear aggressor and target - Mediation treats both parties as moral equals with legitimate grievances; when one party is being harassed, this is false equivalence
• One party is acting in bad faith - Mediation requires good faith from both sides; a bad-faith actor will use mediation as a platform for further manipulation
• The harmful behavior is ongoing - Mediation delays protective action; the priority is stopping the harm, not facilitating dialogue
• The target has said no - Pressuring someone to "talk it out" with the person who harmed them is revictimization
• Threats have been made - Threats end the possibility of mediation; they require protective response
• There's a significant power imbalance - Mediation can't create safety when one party has power over the other

✅ Mediation Works When:

• Both parties want resolution - Genuine willingness to find a solution
• The conflict is about issues, not people - Disagreement about how things should work, not about someone's right to exist in the space
• Good faith exists on both sides - Both parties are being honest and aren't trying to manipulate
• No ongoing harm - The situation is stable enough to take time for dialogue
• Rough power parity - Neither party is significantly more vulnerable than the other

⚠️ When Assessment Itself Is Compromised

This framework only works if you can accurately assess what stage a conflict is at. Certain manipulation patterns can distort that assessment - making conflicts appear to be at different stages than they actually are, inverting who appears to be the aggressor, or weaponizing the framework itself.

Policy Injection

What it is: Someone states a fabricated rule as if it were established community policy, typically to gain advantage in a dispute. "That's our policy" when no such policy exists.

How it distorts assessment:

• Makes Stage 4-5 behavior look like Stage 1-2 - Coalition-building and public attacks get framed as "just enforcing community norms"
• Inverts aggressor and target - The person being manipulated appears to be "violating policy" while the manipulator appears to be maintaining order
• Bypasses dialogue entirely - "This is already settled" skips the Stage 1-3 conversations where resolution was possible
• Recruits the community as a weapon - "We all agree" language (see Consensus Spoofing) manufactures the appearance of Stage 5 consensus that never actually formed

The danger: Someone using Policy Injection can say "they're at Stage 5, we need to skip mediation" - using this very framework to justify skipping protective dialogue and moving straight to punishment.

Consensus Spoofing

What it is: Claiming community agreement that doesn't exist. "We all decided..." / "Everyone knows..." / "Noisebridge-ers don't do that."

How it distorts assessment:

• Makes manufactured coalitions look organic - What's actually one person recruiting allies (Stage 4) appears to be natural community convergence
• Creates false legitimacy for escalation - "The community has already weighed in" justifies skipping the inquiry phase
• Silences dissent - Anyone questioning the "consensus" appears to be opposing the whole community

Red Flags That Assessment May Be Compromised

• Someone insists a conflict is at a higher stage than the evidence suggests - especially if this justifies skipping dialogue
• One party is being characterized as the aggressor, but they're the one trying to have conversations while the other is avoiding them
• "Community consensus" is cited, but you can't find the meeting notes, wiki page, or people who actually agreed
• The person claiming to enforce norms is the primary beneficiary of those "norms"
• Requests for evidence are met with attacks rather than documentation
• The same person keeps ending up in conflicts where they're "just enforcing policy"

What To Do

• Ask "where is this written?" - Legitimate policies can be pointed to
• Ask "who decided? when?" - Legitimate consensus has a history
• Talk to multiple people independently - Does the claimed consensus actually exist?
• Look at the pattern - Who benefits from this framing? Who keeps ending up as the "policy enforcer"?
• Trust your own assessment - If something feels off about how a conflict is being characterized, investigate before accepting the framing

The framework is only as good as the information going into it. If someone is manipulating the inputs, the outputs will be wrong - and the wrong intervention will be applied.

See Policy Injection and Consensus Spoofing for detailed analysis of these patterns and how to counter them.

What To Do Instead

When mediation isn't appropriate, other tools exist:

• Ask To Disengage - Immediately separate parties in an escalating situation
• AskToLeave - Remove someone from the space temporarily
• Documentation - Write down what happened, when, with witnesses
• 86 - Permanent ban for those who won't or can't stop harmful behavior
• Support the target - Focus resources on the person being harmed, not on "both sides"
• Structural changes - Adjust how the space works to prevent future conflicts

See Also

• Conflict Resolution - Overview of conflict resolution at Noisebridge
• Mediation - The mediation process (when appropriate)
• Restorative Communication - Communication framework for early-stage conflicts
• Policy Injection - How fabricated rules distort conflict assessment
• Consensus Spoofing - How fabricated agreement manipulates community process
• Ask To Disengage - De-escalating in the moment
• AskToLeave - Temporary removal from space
• Path_to_86 - How permanent bans happen
• 86 - The ban list

References

• Friedrich Glasl's model of conflict escalation - Wikipedia
• 9 Stages of Conflict Escalation - Die Projektmanager
• Glasl's Nine Stages of Conflict Escalation - Toolshero