Missing Stair: Difference between revisions

From Noisebridge
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
undoNthmost (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Administrators
2,336 edits
VisualWikitext
Fix network metaphor: change "packet loss" to "node loss" (people are nodes, not packets)
Complete rewrite: 75% shorter, more hackerly tone, direct language, network metaphors throughout. Kept: TL;DR, Excellent Hacker Fallacy, links to Anarchy Paralysis/Restorative Communication
Line 20: Line 20:
'''Prevention:''' Make early naming cheap, treat feelings as valid signals, practice [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] before crisis, distribute authority to prevent monopolization, act on patterns quickly before routing becomes infrastructure.
'''Prevention:''' Make early naming cheap, treat feelings as valid signals, practice [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] before crisis, distribute authority to prevent monopolization, act on patterns quickly before routing becomes infrastructure.


== Routing Around Damage ==
== The Metaphor ==


"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore


When a network node fails or a connection is censored, packets automatically reroute through working paths. No central authority decides this - it's distributed, automatic, resilient. The network keeps functioning.
Networks automatically route around failures. No central authority, just distributed resilience. Social networks do this too - but at catastrophic cost.


Community social routing works this way too -- but at a huge cost.
'''Missing stair:''' A person whose harmful behavior everyone routes around instead of fixing. The term comes from a house with a broken stair - everyone learns to step over it, warns newcomers, but nobody repairs it.


== The Missing Stair Metaphor ==
Originally described sexual predators in communities ("don't let new women be alone with him"), now applies to any repeated harmful behavior that's tolerated via workarounds rather than addressed.


Imagine a house with a broken stair. Everyone who lives there knows about it. They've learned to step over it automatically. They warn newcomers: "watch out for that step." But nobody fixes it.
'''Harm spectrum:''' Ranges from severe (assault, violence, stalking) to persistent (harassment, weaponizing processes) to chronic dysfunction (monopolizing resources, repeated conflict escalation, draining disproportionate energy).


'''A missing stair is a person in a community whose harmful behavior is worked around rather than addressed.'''
Pattern is the same: community routes around the person instead of fixing the damage.


The term originated in a 2012 blog post describing known sexual predators in social communities - people everyone knew were dangerous, but instead of removing them, the community developed workarounds:
== System Costs ==


* Don't let new women be alone with him
'''BANDWIDTH EXHAUSTION'''
* Warn people privately at events
Every node routing around the problem pays continuous cost: remembering who they are, modifying behavior, warning others, managing feelings, absorbing friction. Not one-time - cumulative. Eventually nodes run out of capacity.
* Create buddy systems
* Just avoid him if you can


The metaphor has since been generalized to describe anyone whose repeated harmful behavior is tolerated and routed around rather than confronted.
'''NODE LOSS'''
People who can't or won't route just leave. You lose: those most vulnerable, early contributors who bounced, people with energy who left depleted, those who care enough to be hurt. Usually the exact nodes you can't afford to lose. The missing stair acts as a filter, selecting against marginalized people the community claims to want.


== The Range of Harm ==
'''ROUTING OVERHEAD'''
Workarounds become significant work: buddy systems, warning networks, projects redesigned to exclude them, event planning around their presence, constant vigilance. The community spends more energy managing the problem than it would take to fix it directly.


Missing stairs exist on a spectrum:
'''BANDWIDTH MONOPOLIZATION'''
One person consumes disproportionate resources: leadership attention, conflict resolution energy, community discussion cycles, emotional labor from multiple people simultaneously. Legitimate work gets deprioritized. The missing stair becomes the organizing principle.


'''SEVERE HARM''' (original usage)
'''ROUTING TABLE CORRUPTION'''
Warning system has failure modes: not everyone gets warned (especially new people, marginalized folks, those outside certain social circles), warnings get softened ("awkward" vs "predatory"), information lost as people leave, context forgotten. Self-censorship becomes permanent - questioning the workarounds becomes taboo. The routing is now load-bearing.


* Sexual harassment or assault
'''SYSTEM CRASH'''
* Physical violence or threats
Eventually: enough nodes leave that the network dies, someone burns out catastrophically, damage becomes too severe to route around, or external pressure forces action. At this point: fix the damage or accept permanent dysfunction.
* Predatory behavior toward vulnerable people
* Targeted harassment campaigns
* Stalking


'''PERSISTENT HARM'''
== Why Communities Protect Missing Stairs ==


* Bullying or intimidation patterns
=== THE EXCELLENT HACKER FALLACY ===
* Discriminatory behavior
* Abuse of power or authority
* Weaponizing community processes
* Monopolizing resources/spaces to exclude others


'''CHRONIC DYSFUNCTION'''
"But they're such an excellent hacker! We can't afford to lose them!"
 
* Repeated conflict escalation
* Inability to collaborate constructively
* Consistent boundary violations
* Draining disproportionate community resources
 
The severity varies, but the pattern is the same: the community routes around the person instead of addressing the harm.
 
== Why Routing Happens Instead of Fixing ==
 
'''FEAR OF CONSEQUENCES'''
 
* The person might retaliate
* The person might claim victimhood
* The confrontation could split the community
* Legal concerns (defamation, liability)
* The person is "useful" in other ways
 
'''DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY'''
 
No single person feels responsible for addressing it. Everyone assumes:
 
* Someone else will handle it
* Someone with more authority should act
* It's not bad enough for me to say something
* Other people seem okay with it
 
See also: [[Anarchy_Paralysis|Anarchy Paralysis]]
 
'''NORMALIZATION'''
 
The longer the routing continues:
 
* The behavior becomes "just how they are"
* New people learn the workarounds without questioning them
* The routing becomes invisible infrastructure
* Addressing it feels like making a big deal out of nothing
 
== The Cost of Social Routing ==
 
=== BANDWIDTH EXHAUSTION ===
 
Every person who routes around the problem pays a cost:
 
* Remember who the problem person is
* Modify their own behavior around them
* Warn others (often repeatedly, as new people arrive)
* Absorb the extra friction and vigilance
* Manage their own feelings about the situation
* Question whether they're overreacting
 
This isn't one-time work. It's continuous, cumulative labor. Eventually people run out of capacity.
 
=== NODE LOSS ===
 
Some people can't or won't do the routing work. They just leave. The community loses:
 
* People who had the worst interactions (often those most vulnerable)
* Contributors who encountered the problem early and bounced
* People who came with energy and left depleted
* Those who care enough to be hurt by the dysfunction
 
Often these are exactly the people the community can't afford to lose. The missing stair acts as a filter, selecting against certain types of people - frequently those from marginalized groups the community claims to want.
 
=== ROUTING OVERHEAD ===
 
The workarounds themselves become significant work:
 
* Buddy systems for events
* Informal warning networks that must be maintained
* Projects redesigned to exclude the person
* Event planning adjusted around their presence/absence
* Constant background vigilance
* Emotional labor of deciding who to warn and how
 
The community spends more energy managing the problem than it would take to address it directly.
 
=== BANDWIDTH MONOPOLIZATION ===
 
One person consumes disproportionate resources:
 
* Leadership attention and time
* Conflict resolution energy
* Community discussion cycles
* Emotional labor from multiple people simultaneously
* Physical space (if they monopolize certain areas/tools)
 
Legitimate community work gets deprioritized. The missing stair becomes the organizing principle.
 
=== ROUTING TABLE CORRUPTION ===
 
The informal warning system has failure modes:


* Not everyone gets warned (especially new people, marginalized people, people outside certain social circles)
They may have valuable technical skills, control important infrastructure, have institutional knowledge, do unglamorous work, bring funding/connections. The community calculates: contribution value vs harm caused.
* Warnings get softened ("they're just awkward" vs "they're predatory")
* Information gets lost as people leave
* The reasons for the warnings get forgotten over time
* People question whether the warnings are fair without the full context


=== CENSORSHIP ENFORCEMENT ===
This calculation typically fails to account for:
* Nodes already driven away
* Potential contributors who never showed up
* Opportunity cost of monopolization (what could happen if others stepped in)
* Compound routing overhead across whole network
* Long-term network health


The self-censorship that created the routing becomes permanent:
In hacker/maker spaces, technical skill gets weighted too heavily against social harm. "They're brilliant" becomes justification for tolerating behavior that would be unacceptable from someone less skilled.


* "We've tolerated this for years, why act now?"
'''The fallacy:''' Assuming work can only be done by this person, or their contribution outweighs damage. Often when the missing stair is finally removed, others step up and work continues - sometimes better than before.
* "Everyone knows how to handle them"
* "It works fine if you just avoid X/Y/Z"
* Direct naming of the problem becomes taboo
* New people learn that questioning the workarounds isn't done


The routing is now load-bearing. Removing it feels more dangerous than keeping it.
=== OTHER TRAPS ===


=== SYSTEM CRASH ===
'''Sunk cost:''' "We've invested so much time trying to work with them." Each new intervention becomes proof of investment rather than evidence of failure.


Eventually one of several things happens:
'''Fear of conflict:''' Being accused of unfairness, the person's defensive reaction, community splitting, retaliation, being seen as "starting drama." In [[Anarchy_Paralysis|consensus-based communities]], this fear is paralyzing. Everyone waits for someone else to act.


* Enough people leave that the community dies or fundamentally changes
'''Misplaced fairness:''' "Everyone deserves chances." This conflates individual compassion (wanting to believe people can change) with community responsibility (protecting members from harm) with enabling ongoing harm (protecting harmful behavior). You can have compassion for someone's struggles AND recognize they shouldn't be in this community. These aren't contradictory.
* Someone burns out catastrophically trying to manage the situation
* The harmful person causes damage severe enough that it can't be routed around
* External pressure forces action (legal, financial, reputational)
* New leadership doesn't know/respect the routing and breaks the unspoken rules


At this point the community must either address the damage directly or accept permanent dysfunction.
'''Attribution to circumstances:''' Explaining behavior as neurodivergence, mental health struggles, trauma history, cultural differences, good intentions. May all be true. Still doesn't make behavior acceptable or community responsible for absorbing it indefinitely.


== Recognition: Signs of a Missing Stair ==
'''Diffusion of responsibility:''' No single node feels empowered to act. "I only saw one incident, maybe it's not a pattern." "Others would speak up if it were really serious." "Someone with more authority should handle this." Meanwhile everyone thinks the same thing. The [[Anarchy_Paralysis|routing continues]].


=== COMMUNITY-LEVEL INDICATORS ===
== Recognition: Debug Flags ==


* Private warning networks exist ("don't work alone with X")
'''Network-level indicators:'''
* Private warning networks exist
* People use careful language around certain topics/people
* People use careful language around certain topics/people
* Attendance patterns shift when the person is/isn't present
* Attendance patterns shift based on who's present
* Certain spaces or activities become de facto off-limits to some
* Certain spaces/activities de facto off-limits
* Newcomers receive warnings without context
* Newcomers receive warnings without context
* Long-term members have elaborate strategies for "managing" the person
* Long-term members have elaborate "management" strategies
* Good contributors quietly stop participating
* Good contributors quietly stop participating
* The community can describe the problem in detail but won't act on it
* Network can describe problem in detail but won't act
 
=== INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INDICATORS ===


You might be witnessing a missing stair if you:
'''Node-level indicators (you might be witnessing a missing stair if you):'''
 
* Receive vague warnings ("just be careful around them")
* Receive vague warnings about someone ("just be careful around them")
* Notice elaborate social choreography around the person
* Notice people avoiding certain situations involving this person
* Hear multiple similar stories from different people
* Hear multiple similar stories from different people
* Feel gaslit when the person's public persona doesn't match private warnings
* Feel gaslit when public persona doesn't match private warnings
* See elaborate social choreography around the person
* Notice gut reaction being explained away
* Notice your gut reaction is being explained away by others or yourself
 
=== SEVERE HARM INDICATORS ===
 
Some specific signs that require immediate action:


* Pattern of people from marginalized groups leaving after interactions with this person
'''Critical indicators (immediate action required):'''
* Pattern of marginalized people leaving after interactions with this person
* Multiple reports of sexual harassment/assault
* Multiple reports of sexual harassment/assault
* Threats or intimidation
* Threats or intimidation
* Behavior that would be criminal outside the community context
* Behavior that would be criminal outside community context
* Targeting of vulnerable/new community members
* Targeting of vulnerable/new members
 
== Why Communities Protect Missing Stairs ==
 
=== THE EXCELLENT HACKER FALLACY (aka The Usefulness Trap) ===
 
"But they're such an excellent hacker! We can't afford to lose them!"
 
The person may:
 
* Have valuable technical skills
* Control important infrastructure or resources
* Have institutional knowledge nobody else has
* Do unglamorous work nobody else wants to do
* Bring in funding or community connections
 
The community performs a calculation: their contribution value vs. harm caused. But this calculation typically fails to account for:
 
* People already driven away by them
* Potential contributors who never showed up because of them
* Opportunity cost of their monopolization (what could happen if others could step in)
* Compound cost of routing overhead across the whole community
* Long-term community health and culture


In hacker/maker spaces, technical skill often gets weighted too heavily against social harm. "They're brilliant" becomes justification for tolerating behavior that would be unacceptable from someone less skilled.
== Intervention Protocols ==


'''The fallacy:''' assuming the work can only be done by this person, or that their contribution outweighs the damage. Often when the missing stair is finally removed, others step up and the work continues - sometimes better than before.
'''SEVERITY ASSESSMENT'''


=== SUNK COST FALLACY ===
'''Immediate removal:''' Violence, sexual assault, stalking, imminent danger. DO NOT route around. Remove immediately, warn network openly, document everything, support targets, contact authorities if appropriate. The network's comfort with "handling it internally" does not supersede safety.


"We've already invested so much time trying to work with them."
'''Urgent response:''' Discriminatory harassment, abuse of authority, weaponizing processes, hostile environment for marginalized members. Direct conversation with clear boundaries and consequences, temporary removal (ATL) while assessed, community meeting, clear documentation, defined timeline.


The more resources spent on managing the person, the harder it becomes to acknowledge that management isn't working. Each new intervention becomes proof of investment rather than evidence of failure.
'''Structured intervention:''' Repeated conflict escalation, monopolizing resources, draining disproportionate energy, inability to collaborate. Individual conversations using [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]], documented patterns, clear requests for behavior change, accountability structure, timeline for assessment.


=== FEAR OF CONFLICT ===
'''STOP ROUTING, START FIXING'''


* Being accused of unfairness or discrimination
Stop: Warning privately without addressing source, modifying activities around one person, explaining away discomfort, waiting for perfect documentation/consensus, treating "avoiding drama" as more important than addressing harm.
* The person's defensive reaction
* Community splitting over the decision
* Retaliation (social, professional, legal)
* Being seen as "starting drama"


In [[Anarchy_Paralysis|consensus-based communities]], this fear can be paralyzing. Everyone waits for someone else to act.
Start: Naming the pattern openly, documenting specific incidents, comparing notes with others affected, treating as systems issue not individual failures, taking action proportional to harm.


=== MISPLACED FAIRNESS ===
'''EARLY INTERVENTION (PREFERRED)'''


"Everyone deserves chances."
Direct conversation when you notice concerning behavior: "I've noticed [specific pattern]. This impacts me/the community by [specific effect]." Use [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] framework: observations, feelings, needs, requests. Document conversation and agreements. Set clear boundaries: "If this continues, I will [specific consequence]." Follow through.


This conflates:
If individual intervention doesn't work: Keep dated records, note who else affected/witnessed, document attempts to address, share with trusted community members. Don't wait for "enough" evidence. If you're seeing a pattern, others likely are too.


* Individual compassion (wanting to believe people can change)
'''COMMUNITY-LEVEL INTERVENTION'''
* Community responsibility (protecting members from harm)
* Enabling ongoing harm (protecting harmful behavior)


You can have compassion for someone's struggles AND recognize they shouldn't be in this community. These aren't contradictory.
When individual approaches haven't worked or pattern is widespread: Compare notes, look for patterns across experiences, document aggregate pattern, be specific about impact.


=== ATTRIBUTION TO CIRCUMSTANCES ===
Present to community: Be specific about behaviors not character, focus on impact and pattern not single incidents, name what needs to change (specific observable behaviors), propose clear next steps with defined timeline.


People explain the behavior as:
If person commits to change: Specific behaviors to stop/start, timeline for assessment (weeks not months), who observes and reports, clear consequences if pattern continues, regular check-ins.
 
* Neurodivergence ("they can't help it")
* Mental health struggles ("they're working on it")
* Trauma history ("they've been hurt")
* Cultural differences ("that's just how they are")
* Good intentions ("they don't mean to")
 
These may all be true. They still don't make the behavior acceptable or the community responsible for absorbing it indefinitely.
 
=== DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY ===
 
No single person feels empowered to act:
 
* "I only saw one incident, maybe it's not a pattern"
* "Others would speak up if it were really serious"
* "Someone with more authority should handle this"
* "What if I'm wrong and ruin someone's reputation?"
 
Meanwhile everyone is thinking the same thing. The [[Anarchy_Paralysis|routing continues]].
 
== Intervention Strategies ==
 
=== Assessing Severity: When to Act Immediately ===
 
Not all missing stair situations require the same response. Assess quickly:
 
'''IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED'''
 
If someone is:
 
* Committing or threatening violence
* Sexually assaulting or harassing people
* Stalking or threatening community members
* Creating imminent danger
 
DO NOT route around this. DO NOT attempt community mediation.
 
* Remove the person immediately (ask them to leave, call authorities if needed)
* Warn the community openly
* Document everything
* Support survivors/targets
* Contact relevant authorities or organizations
 
The community's comfort with "handling it internally" does not supersede people's safety.
 
'''URGENT COMMUNITY RESPONSE'''
 
If someone is:
 
* Engaging in discriminatory harassment
* Abusing positions of authority
* Weaponizing community processes to harm others
* Creating hostile environment for marginalized members
 
This requires swift community action but may not need external intervention:
 
* Direct conversation with clear boundaries and consequences
* Temporary removal (Ask to Leave) while situation is assessed
* Community meeting to address pattern
* Clear documentation of behavior and agreements
* Defined timeline for improvement
 
'''STRUCTURED INTERVENTION'''
 
If someone is:
 
* Repeatedly causing conflict through communication patterns
* Monopolizing resources/spaces
* Draining disproportionate community energy
* Unable to collaborate constructively
 
Community process may be appropriate:
 
* Individual conversations using [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]]
* Documented patterns and specific examples
* Clear requests for behavior change
* Accountability structure
* Timeline for assessment
 
=== Stop Routing, Start Fixing ===
 
The first step in any intervention is recognizing that routing IS the problem.
 
'''STOP:'''
 
* Warning people privately without addressing the source
* Modifying community activities around one person
* Explaining away your discomfort
* Waiting for the perfect time/documentation/consensus
* Treating "avoiding drama" as more important than addressing harm
 
'''START:'''
 
* Naming the pattern openly (in appropriate venue)
* Documenting specific incidents
* Comparing notes with others affected
* Treating the problem as a systems issue, not individual failures
* Taking action proportional to harm
 
=== Early Intervention (Preferred) ===
 
Address patterns before they become institutional.
 
'''INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATION'''
 
When you notice concerning behavior:
 
* Direct conversation: "I've noticed [specific pattern]. This impacts me/the community by [specific effect]."
* Use [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] framework - observations, feelings, needs, requests
* Document the conversation and any agreements made
* Set clear boundaries: "If this continues, I will [specific consequence]"
* Follow through - if the boundary is crossed, enact the consequence
 
'''PATTERN DOCUMENTATION'''
 
If individual intervention doesn't work:
 
* Keep dated records of specific incidents
* Note who else was affected/witnessed
* Document your attempts to address it
* Share with trusted community members to compare patterns
 
Don't wait for "enough" evidence. If you're seeing a pattern, others likely are too.
 
=== Community-Level Intervention ===
 
When individual approaches haven't worked or the pattern is widespread:
 
'''COMPARE NOTES'''
 
* Talk to others who've had issues
* Look for patterns across different people's experiences
* Document the aggregate pattern, not just individual incidents
* Be specific about impact (who left, what stopped, what changed)
 
'''COMMUNITY DISCUSSION'''
 
Present the pattern to the community:
 
* Be specific about behaviors, not character judgments
* Focus on impact and pattern, not single incidents
* Name what needs to change (specific, observable behaviors)
* Propose clear next steps with defined timeline
 
'''ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURE'''
 
If the person commits to change:
 
* Specific behaviors to stop/start
* Timeline for assessment (weeks, not months)
* Who will observe and report on changes
* Clear consequences if pattern continues
* Regular check-ins


Be honest: if the accountability structure requires more work than just removing the person, that's data.
Be honest: if the accountability structure requires more work than just removing the person, that's data.


=== When Intervention Fails ===
'''WHEN INTERVENTION FAILS'''
 
If patterns persist despite intervention:
 
'''ASK TO LEAVE (ATL)'''
 
Temporary removal to create space for:
 
* Person to reflect and work on themselves elsewhere
* Community to recover from the routing overhead
* Assessment of whether change is possible
* Clear air for those who were affected
 
Be specific about:
 
* How long (definite timeframe or indefinite pending conditions)
* What would need to change for return
* Who decides about return
 
'''PERMANENT BAN (86)'''
 
When:
 
* Harm is severe enough to warrant immediate permanent removal
* Pattern persists despite multiple interventions
* Person refuses to acknowledge impact or change
* Community safety requires it
 
Document clearly:
 
* Specific pattern of behavior
* Interventions attempted
* Why those interventions failed
* Decision process (who was involved, how decided)
 
'''PUBLIC STATEMENT'''


For serious situations, especially those involving safety:
'''ATL (Ask to Leave):''' Temporary removal for person to reflect elsewhere, community to recover from routing overhead, assessment of whether change possible. Be specific about: duration (definite timeframe or indefinite pending conditions), what would need to change for return, who decides about return.


* Warn the community clearly
'''86 (Permanent Ban):''' When harm severe enough to warrant immediate permanent removal, pattern persists despite multiple interventions, person refuses to acknowledge impact or change, community safety requires it. Document: specific pattern, interventions attempted, why they failed, decision process.
* Be specific about what happened (facts, not speculation)
* Protect those harmed (get consent before sharing their stories)
* Share with other related communities if appropriate


=== The "Not Everyone Belongs Here" Principle ===
'''Public statement:''' For serious situations involving safety: warn network clearly, be specific about facts not speculation, protect those harmed (get consent before sharing their stories), share with related communities if appropriate.


A hard truth: not everyone is a good fit for every space.
'''NOT EVERYONE BELONGS HERE'''


This doesn't make them bad people. It doesn't mean they can't thrive elsewhere. It means this particular community and this particular person don't work together.
Hard truth: not everyone is a good fit for every space. Doesn't make them bad people. Doesn't mean they can't thrive elsewhere. Means this particular network and this particular node don't work together.


Recognizing this early and acting on it with clarity and kindness prevents:
Recognizing this early and acting on it with clarity prevents: years of routing overhead, good nodes leaving, network resources consumed by management, the person themselves being in a hostile environment.
 
* Years of routing overhead
* Good people leaving
* Community resources consumed by management
* The person themselves being in a hostile environment


Sometimes the kindest thing is clear boundaries: "This space isn't working for you or for us."
Sometimes the kindest thing is clear boundaries: "This space isn't working for you or for us."
Line 495: Line 161:
== Prevention ==
== Prevention ==


The best intervention is the one you don't need. Missing stairs form when early problems go unaddressed. Prevention means making it easy to fix damage when it's small.
'''NETWORK-LEVEL'''
 
=== Culture-Level Prevention ===
 
'''NORMALIZE EARLY NAMING'''
 
Make it easy and normal to say "this bothered me" before it becomes "this is intolerable."
 
Create a culture where:
 
* Expressing discomfort is seen as contribution, not complaint
* Naming small problems is valued, not dismissed as "making a big deal"
* People can say "that didn't work for me" without extensive justification
* Conflicts are expected and addressed, not avoided
 
If people wait until they have ironclad documentation before speaking up, they'll wait too long.
 
'''TREAT FEELINGS AS DATA'''
 
Emotions are information about what's working and what isn't.
 
* Discomfort means something is off
* Dread before seeing someone is a signal
* Relief when someone isn't present is a signal
* Patterns of feeling mean patterns exist
 
Justice-oriented people often discount their own feelings as "maybe I'm being unfair." This creates the opening for missing stairs to form.
 
Your feelings don't need to be "justified" to be valid data. Trust them. Report them. Let the community decide what to do with that information.
 
'''PRACTICE RESTORATIVE COMMUNICATION'''
 
Make RC the default way of handling small conflicts, not an emergency-only tool.
 
See: [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]]
 
When RC is routine:
 
* People get practice before stakes are high
* It becomes less scary and formal
* Patterns get noticed earlier
* Conflicts don't accumulate
 
If RC only happens during crises, people won't have the skills when they need them.
 
'''DISTRIBUTE AUTHORITY'''
 
Don't let individuals monopolize roles, spaces, or resources.
 
* Rotate leadership positions
* Cross-train on important tasks
* Share institutional knowledge actively
* Make it easy for new people to step into roles
* Question when someone becomes "the only person who can do X"
 
The Excellent Hacker Fallacy thrives when work is concentrated in one person.
 
'''ADDRESS QUICKLY'''
 
Act on patterns promptly. Don't wait for:
 
* Perfect documentation
* Absolute certainty
* The "right" moment
* Complete consensus
* The problem to get worse
 
By the time you're debating whether someone is "really" a missing stair, you already know the answer.
 
=== Individual-Level Prevention ===
 
'''TRUST YOUR GUT'''
 
If something feels wrong, it probably is.
 
* You don't need to prove your discomfort
* You don't need everyone else to feel the same way
* "I might be overreacting" is often a sign you're underreacting
* Your comfort in the space matters
 
Name it when it's small. Don't wait for it to be "bad enough."
 
'''USE RESTORATIVE COMMUNICATION EARLY'''
 
Practice the framework for minor conflicts:
 
When something bothers you:
 
* Observation: "When you [specific action]..."
* Feeling: "I felt [emotion]..."
* Need: "Because I need [underlying need]..."
* Request: "Would you be willing to [specific request]?"
 
See: [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]]
 
This works for everything from "you interrupted me" to "your behavior is making me unsafe."
 
'''DOCUMENT AS YOU GO'''
 
You don't need to be building a case. Just note things:
 
* Date and what happened
* Who else was there
* How it affected you
* What you said/did in response
 
If it becomes a pattern, you'll have specifics. If it doesn't, you'll have peace of mind.
 
'''SUPPORT OTHERS WHO NAME HARM'''
 
When someone says "this person's behavior is a problem":
 
* Believe them
* Ask what they need
* Don't make them prove it
* Don't leave them isolated
* Add your own observations if you have them
* Don't require perfection before acting
 
The community's response to early naming determines whether problems get addressed or go underground.
 
=== Systemic-Level Prevention ===
 
'''BUILD CONFLICT RESOLUTION CAPACITY'''
 
Train multiple people in:
 
* [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] facilitation
* Mediation skills
* Recognizing patterns vs. one-offs
* When to escalate vs. when to let go
 
Don't rely on one or two "conflict people." Distribute the skill.
 
'''RESPECT MEDIATOR EXPERTISE'''
 
When someone has mediated a situation, treat their assessment seriously.
 
If multiple mediators say "this person can't/won't change," believe them. They've seen more than you have. They've done the work.
 
Don't force new mediators to re-learn what's already known. That burns people out.
 
'''CREATE REPORTING PATHWAYS'''
 
Make it clear how to raise concerns:
 
* Who to talk to
* What to expect
* How concerns are handled
* Confidentiality policies
* What happens next
 
Uncertainty about process prevents people from reporting.
 
'''CHECK IN WITH PEOPLE WHO LEAVE'''
 
Exit interviews reveal patterns.
 
When someone stops participating:
 
* Ask why (genuinely, not defensively)
* Listen for patterns across multiple departures
* Take their feedback seriously
* Act on what you learn
 
People who left because of missing stair often only feel safe saying so after they're gone.
 
'''REVIEW FOR ROUTING PATTERNS'''
 
Periodically assess:
 
* Are there private warning networks operating?
* Do people modify behavior around certain individuals?
* Are some spaces/activities de facto restricted?
* Do new people receive unexplained warnings?
* Has anyone become "too difficult to address"?
 
If routing has developed, the damage is already there. Stop routing, start fixing.
 
'''TEACH PATTERN RECOGNITION'''
 
Help people recognize the signs:
 
* What missing stairs look like
* How routing develops
* Why communities protect them
* When to act vs. when to wait
 
Make this page required reading for members. Reference it in onboarding.
 
The more people understand the pattern, the faster they'll interrupt it.
 
=== Preventive Structures ===
 
Some concrete practices:
 
'''REGULAR COMMUNITY HEALTH CHECK-INS'''
 
Beyond regular meetings, create space to discuss:
 
* How people are feeling about the community
* What's working, what isn't
* Patterns people are noticing
* Small conflicts before they grow
 
Make this routine, not crisis-only.
 
'''ONBOARDING THAT INCLUDES CONFLICT SKILLS'''
 
Teach new members:
 
* [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] basics
* How to raise concerns
* Community standards and why they exist
* What to do if they see problems


Don't wait for them to encounter issues before teaching them how to handle them.
Make early naming normal - discomfort before intolerable. Treat feelings as valid signals (dread before seeing someone, relief when they're absent - these are data). Practice [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] routinely not just in crisis. Distribute authority - rotate roles, cross-train, share knowledge, question monopolization. Act on patterns quickly - don't wait for perfect documentation, absolute certainty, complete consensus, or worse damage.


'''DOCUMENTATION SYSTEMS'''
'''NODE-LEVEL'''


Make it easy to:
Trust your gut - you don't need to prove discomfort or get everyone else to feel the same. "I might be overreacting" is often a sign you're underreacting. Use [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] for minor conflicts before they grow. Document as you go (date, what happened, who was there, impact, your response) - not building a case, just noting patterns. Support others who name harm - believe them, ask what they need, don't make them prove it, don't leave them isolated.


* Record incidents (with dates, specifics, impact)
'''SYSTEMIC'''
* Track patterns over time
* See aggregate data (not just individual stories)
* Share information appropriately


Good documentation makes patterns visible before they're entrenched.
Build conflict resolution capacity across multiple people - don't rely on one or two "conflict people." Respect mediator expertise - if multiple mediators say "this person can't/won't change," believe them (see [[Anarchy_Paralysis]]). Create clear reporting pathways. Check in with people who leave (exit interviews reveal patterns). Review periodically for routing patterns. Teach pattern recognition - make this page required reading.


'''CLEAR DECISION PROCESSES'''
'''PREVENTIVE STRUCTURES'''


Define ahead of time:
Regular community health check-ins beyond regular meetings. Onboarding that includes [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] basics, how to raise concerns, what to do if problems arise. Documentation systems that make it easy to record incidents, track patterns, see aggregate data. Clear decision processes defined ahead of time - who can make what decisions, how issues escalate, what evidence/process needed for actions, timeline expectations. Don't invent process during crisis.


* Who can make what decisions
== References ==
* How serious issues get escalated
* What evidence/process is needed for various actions
* Timeline expectations


Don't invent process during crisis.
* Original "Missing Stair" concept: [http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html Pervocracy 2012]
* Network routing: John Gilmore
* [[Anarchy_Paralysis|Anarchy Paralysis]] - why communities fail to act on harm
* [[Restorative_Communication|Restorative Communication]] - framework for addressing conflicts

Revision as of 06:02, 10 January 2026

Missing Stair

TL;DR

Communities route around harmful individuals the way networks route around damage - but unlike packet routing, social routing costs:

  • Bandwidth (emotional labor)
  • Node loss (good people leaving)
  • Routing overhead (constant workarounds)
  • Censorship enforcement (can't name the problem)

A "missing stair" is damage that's been routed around so long it's become load-bearing infrastructure.

How it works: Everyone maintains routing tables (private warnings), new nodes inherit routes without knowing why, and the routing overhead eventually exhausts available bandwidth.

System crashes when: Enough nodes are lost, someone burns out maintaining routes, or damage becomes un-routable.

Fix: Stop routing, address damage directly.

Prevention: Make early naming cheap, treat feelings as valid signals, practice Restorative Communication before crisis, distribute authority to prevent monopolization, act on patterns quickly before routing becomes infrastructure.

The Metaphor

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

Networks automatically route around failures. No central authority, just distributed resilience. Social networks do this too - but at catastrophic cost.

Missing stair: A person whose harmful behavior everyone routes around instead of fixing. The term comes from a house with a broken stair - everyone learns to step over it, warns newcomers, but nobody repairs it.

Originally described sexual predators in communities ("don't let new women be alone with him"), now applies to any repeated harmful behavior that's tolerated via workarounds rather than addressed.

Harm spectrum: Ranges from severe (assault, violence, stalking) to persistent (harassment, weaponizing processes) to chronic dysfunction (monopolizing resources, repeated conflict escalation, draining disproportionate energy).

Pattern is the same: community routes around the person instead of fixing the damage.

System Costs

BANDWIDTH EXHAUSTION Every node routing around the problem pays continuous cost: remembering who they are, modifying behavior, warning others, managing feelings, absorbing friction. Not one-time - cumulative. Eventually nodes run out of capacity.

NODE LOSS People who can't or won't route just leave. You lose: those most vulnerable, early contributors who bounced, people with energy who left depleted, those who care enough to be hurt. Usually the exact nodes you can't afford to lose. The missing stair acts as a filter, selecting against marginalized people the community claims to want.

ROUTING OVERHEAD Workarounds become significant work: buddy systems, warning networks, projects redesigned to exclude them, event planning around their presence, constant vigilance. The community spends more energy managing the problem than it would take to fix it directly.

BANDWIDTH MONOPOLIZATION One person consumes disproportionate resources: leadership attention, conflict resolution energy, community discussion cycles, emotional labor from multiple people simultaneously. Legitimate work gets deprioritized. The missing stair becomes the organizing principle.

ROUTING TABLE CORRUPTION Warning system has failure modes: not everyone gets warned (especially new people, marginalized folks, those outside certain social circles), warnings get softened ("awkward" vs "predatory"), information lost as people leave, context forgotten. Self-censorship becomes permanent - questioning the workarounds becomes taboo. The routing is now load-bearing.

SYSTEM CRASH Eventually: enough nodes leave that the network dies, someone burns out catastrophically, damage becomes too severe to route around, or external pressure forces action. At this point: fix the damage or accept permanent dysfunction.

Why Communities Protect Missing Stairs

THE EXCELLENT HACKER FALLACY

"But they're such an excellent hacker! We can't afford to lose them!"

They may have valuable technical skills, control important infrastructure, have institutional knowledge, do unglamorous work, bring funding/connections. The community calculates: contribution value vs harm caused.

This calculation typically fails to account for:

  • Nodes already driven away
  • Potential contributors who never showed up
  • Opportunity cost of monopolization (what could happen if others stepped in)
  • Compound routing overhead across whole network
  • Long-term network health

In hacker/maker spaces, technical skill gets weighted too heavily against social harm. "They're brilliant" becomes justification for tolerating behavior that would be unacceptable from someone less skilled.

The fallacy: Assuming work can only be done by this person, or their contribution outweighs damage. Often when the missing stair is finally removed, others step up and work continues - sometimes better than before.

OTHER TRAPS

Sunk cost: "We've invested so much time trying to work with them." Each new intervention becomes proof of investment rather than evidence of failure.

Fear of conflict: Being accused of unfairness, the person's defensive reaction, community splitting, retaliation, being seen as "starting drama." In consensus-based communities, this fear is paralyzing. Everyone waits for someone else to act.

Misplaced fairness: "Everyone deserves chances." This conflates individual compassion (wanting to believe people can change) with community responsibility (protecting members from harm) with enabling ongoing harm (protecting harmful behavior). You can have compassion for someone's struggles AND recognize they shouldn't be in this community. These aren't contradictory.

Attribution to circumstances: Explaining behavior as neurodivergence, mental health struggles, trauma history, cultural differences, good intentions. May all be true. Still doesn't make behavior acceptable or community responsible for absorbing it indefinitely.

Diffusion of responsibility: No single node feels empowered to act. "I only saw one incident, maybe it's not a pattern." "Others would speak up if it were really serious." "Someone with more authority should handle this." Meanwhile everyone thinks the same thing. The routing continues.

Recognition: Debug Flags

Network-level indicators:

  • Private warning networks exist
  • People use careful language around certain topics/people
  • Attendance patterns shift based on who's present
  • Certain spaces/activities de facto off-limits
  • Newcomers receive warnings without context
  • Long-term members have elaborate "management" strategies
  • Good contributors quietly stop participating
  • Network can describe problem in detail but won't act

Node-level indicators (you might be witnessing a missing stair if you):

  • Receive vague warnings ("just be careful around them")
  • Notice elaborate social choreography around the person
  • Hear multiple similar stories from different people
  • Feel gaslit when public persona doesn't match private warnings
  • Notice gut reaction being explained away

Critical indicators (immediate action required):

  • Pattern of marginalized people leaving after interactions with this person
  • Multiple reports of sexual harassment/assault
  • Threats or intimidation
  • Behavior that would be criminal outside community context
  • Targeting of vulnerable/new members

Intervention Protocols

SEVERITY ASSESSMENT

Immediate removal: Violence, sexual assault, stalking, imminent danger. DO NOT route around. Remove immediately, warn network openly, document everything, support targets, contact authorities if appropriate. The network's comfort with "handling it internally" does not supersede safety.

Urgent response: Discriminatory harassment, abuse of authority, weaponizing processes, hostile environment for marginalized members. Direct conversation with clear boundaries and consequences, temporary removal (ATL) while assessed, community meeting, clear documentation, defined timeline.

Structured intervention: Repeated conflict escalation, monopolizing resources, draining disproportionate energy, inability to collaborate. Individual conversations using Restorative Communication, documented patterns, clear requests for behavior change, accountability structure, timeline for assessment.

STOP ROUTING, START FIXING

Stop: Warning privately without addressing source, modifying activities around one person, explaining away discomfort, waiting for perfect documentation/consensus, treating "avoiding drama" as more important than addressing harm.

Start: Naming the pattern openly, documenting specific incidents, comparing notes with others affected, treating as systems issue not individual failures, taking action proportional to harm.

EARLY INTERVENTION (PREFERRED)

Direct conversation when you notice concerning behavior: "I've noticed [specific pattern]. This impacts me/the community by [specific effect]." Use Restorative Communication framework: observations, feelings, needs, requests. Document conversation and agreements. Set clear boundaries: "If this continues, I will [specific consequence]." Follow through.

If individual intervention doesn't work: Keep dated records, note who else affected/witnessed, document attempts to address, share with trusted community members. Don't wait for "enough" evidence. If you're seeing a pattern, others likely are too.

COMMUNITY-LEVEL INTERVENTION

When individual approaches haven't worked or pattern is widespread: Compare notes, look for patterns across experiences, document aggregate pattern, be specific about impact.

Present to community: Be specific about behaviors not character, focus on impact and pattern not single incidents, name what needs to change (specific observable behaviors), propose clear next steps with defined timeline.

If person commits to change: Specific behaviors to stop/start, timeline for assessment (weeks not months), who observes and reports, clear consequences if pattern continues, regular check-ins.

Be honest: if the accountability structure requires more work than just removing the person, that's data.

WHEN INTERVENTION FAILS

ATL (Ask to Leave): Temporary removal for person to reflect elsewhere, community to recover from routing overhead, assessment of whether change possible. Be specific about: duration (definite timeframe or indefinite pending conditions), what would need to change for return, who decides about return.

86 (Permanent Ban): When harm severe enough to warrant immediate permanent removal, pattern persists despite multiple interventions, person refuses to acknowledge impact or change, community safety requires it. Document: specific pattern, interventions attempted, why they failed, decision process.

Public statement: For serious situations involving safety: warn network clearly, be specific about facts not speculation, protect those harmed (get consent before sharing their stories), share with related communities if appropriate.

NOT EVERYONE BELONGS HERE

Hard truth: not everyone is a good fit for every space. Doesn't make them bad people. Doesn't mean they can't thrive elsewhere. Means this particular network and this particular node don't work together.

Recognizing this early and acting on it with clarity prevents: years of routing overhead, good nodes leaving, network resources consumed by management, the person themselves being in a hostile environment.

Sometimes the kindest thing is clear boundaries: "This space isn't working for you or for us."

Prevention

NETWORK-LEVEL

Make early naming normal - discomfort before intolerable. Treat feelings as valid signals (dread before seeing someone, relief when they're absent - these are data). Practice Restorative Communication routinely not just in crisis. Distribute authority - rotate roles, cross-train, share knowledge, question monopolization. Act on patterns quickly - don't wait for perfect documentation, absolute certainty, complete consensus, or worse damage.

NODE-LEVEL

Trust your gut - you don't need to prove discomfort or get everyone else to feel the same. "I might be overreacting" is often a sign you're underreacting. Use Restorative Communication for minor conflicts before they grow. Document as you go (date, what happened, who was there, impact, your response) - not building a case, just noting patterns. Support others who name harm - believe them, ask what they need, don't make them prove it, don't leave them isolated.

SYSTEMIC

Build conflict resolution capacity across multiple people - don't rely on one or two "conflict people." Respect mediator expertise - if multiple mediators say "this person can't/won't change," believe them (see Anarchy_Paralysis). Create clear reporting pathways. Check in with people who leave (exit interviews reveal patterns). Review periodically for routing patterns. Teach pattern recognition - make this page required reading.

PREVENTIVE STRUCTURES

Regular community health check-ins beyond regular meetings. Onboarding that includes Restorative Communication basics, how to raise concerns, what to do if problems arise. Documentation systems that make it easy to record incidents, track patterns, see aggregate data. Clear decision processes defined ahead of time - who can make what decisions, how issues escalate, what evidence/process needed for actions, timeline expectations. Don't invent process during crisis.

References

Retrieved from "https://replica-wiki.extremist.software/index.php?title=Missing_Stair&oldid=87400"