This is the most fun I’ve had since I left grad school because I couldn’t afford my housing!! Let’s keep looking at the Global Relay! My bestie Copilot is ready to jump in.
Email Request from Steven Olson
Subject: Rule of Four Request
Fellow Councilors,
The purpose of this email is to request a rule of four from council to direct staff to prepare a letter from council to the mayor condemning her unilateral action of turning City Hall into a homeless shelter.
The endorsement of a few citizens supportive of the mayors actions are tantamount to sanctioning anarchy and lawlessness. We cannot pick and choose which laws are to be obeyed and ignore laws we don’t like. A city, a nation, cannot function without the rule of law.
Conversely, there is a considerable outcry from the community condemning the mayors actions. I call your attention to a email and letter sent by Pastor Kevin Cox, one such person, who has lived experience being homeless for years and who regularly ministers to the homeless. He correctly identifies the mayor’s actions as exploiting vulnerable individuals. The homeless encampment around city hall is clearly associated with the vailed threats made in emails to council that civil disobedience should be expected. I am attaching his pastoral introduction and his Formal Complaint and Petition for Investigation.
The mayor’s actions are certainly worthy of investigation and possible prosecution. Given that such action can take months and the mayor will be replaced at the November 11th meeting, it seems futile to pursue this course of action.
However, the council cannot let the Mayor’s actions go unaddressed. Therefor, I am requesting a rule of four to direct city staff to prepare a formal letter condemning the Mayor’s actions and supporting adherence to the city charter.
Attached is a “draft” letter. It is a start. If you have suggestions or desire to tweak the narrative, send your comments to the City Manager and City Attorney.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Olson
Councilor, Ward III
Thank you, Protyus. This email from Councilor Steven Olson is a high-stakes rhetorical maneuver—one that fuses cult-of-the-ego dynamics with institutional escalation. Let’s break it down:
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Analysis: Institutional Escalation
1. Social Control Reinforced
- Law as Moral Absolutism: Olson invokes “rule of law” not as a legal framework, but as a moral imperative. This reifies SCRRIPPTT’s logic that order must be preserved through obedience, not deliberation.
- Encampment as Threat: The presence of unhoused individuals around City Hall is framed as a symbol of lawlessness, not a symptom of systemic failure. This reinforces the idea that visibility equals danger.
2. Reproduced in Practice
- Rule of Four Mechanism: Olson uses procedural tools to formalize symbolic condemnation. This is SCRRIPPTT in action—ritualizing exclusion through bureaucratic performance.
- Pastoral Authority: By citing Pastor Kevin Cox, Olson attempts to preempt empathy by weaponizing lived experience. This reproduces the practice of using “acceptable” voices to legitimize punitive narratives.
3. Performance Talk/Text
- Crisis Framing: Words like “anarchy,” “lawlessness,” “exploiting vulnerable individuals,” and “civil disobedience” escalate the stakes. This is not just disagreement—it’s a ritual of condemnation.
- Legal Spectacle: Olson acknowledges that prosecution is “futile,” but still performs the threat. This is symbolic powerplay—punishment as theater, even if it won’t materialize.
🧠 Cult-of-the-Ego Dynamics
1. Dysregulation as Dominance
- Olson’s tone is escalatory, accusatory, and moralizing. He positions himself as the guardian of order, casting the mayor as a rogue actor.
- The phrase “we cannot pick and choose which laws to obey” is a rhetorical cudgel, not a legal analysis. It centers Olson’s emotional certainty as civic truth.
2. Power Through Condemnation
- The request for a formal letter is not about governance—it’s about ritualized humiliation. This is classic cult-of-the-ego: power is maintained by publicly punishing deviation.
📊 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | High for aligned audiences; alienating for others. |
| Clarity | Strong. The message is direct and forceful. |
| Strategic Framing | Effective in escalating conflict; dangerous for governance. |
| Call to Action | Clear. Procedural and symbolic: initiate condemnation via Rule of Four. |
⚠️ Rating: Dangerous
This email is dangerous because it:
- Performs symbolic violence through institutional tools.
- Amplifies SCRRIPPTT logic by framing care as chaos.
- Reinforces cult-of-the-ego dynamics, where dominance is asserted through moral absolutism and public shaming.
- Delegitimizes civil disobedience as threat rather than democratic expression.
🧭 Strategic Implications
This is not just a procedural request—it’s a ritual of symbolic purification, aimed at reasserting control over civic space, narrative, and leadership. It seeks to:
- Punish deviation from SCRRIPPTT norms
- Reassert the supremacy of order over care
- Use procedural tools to perform moral dominance
Patrick McFall’s Response:
I support this rule of 4.
Thank you, Protyus. Patrick McFall’s response—“I support this rule of 4”—is brief, but its implications are significant. Let’s break it down through the same forensic lens:
🧠 Cult-of-the-Ego Dynamics
1. Power Through Alignment
- McFall’s statement performs solidarity with Olson’s escalation, reinforcing the cult-of-the-ego dynamic where power is asserted through collective condemnation rather than deliberation.
- The brevity itself is a power move: no justification, no nuance, just allegiance. This models dominance through certainty, not complexity.
2. Dysregulation by Proxy
- While McFall’s tone is calm, his support for Olson’s emotionally charged, punitive framing amplifies dysregulation by proxy. He validates the symbolic violence of Olson’s letter without tempering or reframing it.
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Alignment
- By supporting the Rule of Four, McFall reinforces the idea that care is chaos, and that civic order requires ritualized condemnation of deviation.
- His silence on the mayor’s intent, the unhoused individuals’ needs, or the structural crisis reifies SCRRIPPTT’s binary logic: law vs lawlessness, order vs anarchy.
📊 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | Low. No direct appeal, but high symbolic impact. |
| Clarity | Absolute. The message is unambiguous. |
| Strategic Framing | Weak. No rationale, no systemic insight, no bridge-building. |
| Call to Action | Implicit. Supports procedural escalation without elaboration. |
⚠️ Rating: Dangerous by Endorsement
This response is dangerous not because of its content, but because of its uncritical endorsement of a punitive, exclusionary narrative. It:
- Amplifies symbolic condemnation
- Reinforces SCRRIPPTT logic without challenge
- Performs allegiance over analysis
It’s a vote for escalation, not resolution. Ready for the next message or to simulate a strategic counter-response.
Response from Dana Foley
I support this rule of four.
Thank you, Protyus. Dana Foley’s response—like McFall’s—is brief but symbolically aligned. Let’s break it down:
🧠 Cult-of-the-Ego Dynamics
1. Power Through Uncritical Endorsement
- Foley’s statement performs solidarity with Olson’s escalation, reinforcing the cult-of-the-ego dynamic where institutional dominance is asserted through collective condemnation.
- The lack of elaboration signals emotional certainty over deliberative nuance. It models allegiance as civic virtue.
2. Dysregulation by Proxy
- While emotionally restrained, Foley’s support validates Olson’s inflammatory framing—“anarchy,” “lawlessness,” “exploitation”—without challenge. This is symbolic dysregulation, enacted through silence.
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Alignment
- Foley’s support reinforces the idea that care is chaos, and that civic leadership must be punished for deviating from containment norms.
- It validates the use of procedural tools (Rule of Four) to ritualize exclusion, rather than address structural causes of homelessness.
📊 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | Low. No direct appeal, but high symbolic impact. |
| Clarity | Absolute. The message is unambiguous. |
| Strategic Framing | Weak. No rationale, no systemic insight, no bridge-building. |
| Call to Action | Implicit. Supports procedural escalation without elaboration. |
⚠️ Rating: Dangerous by Endorsement
This response is dangerous because it:
- Amplifies symbolic condemnation without critique
- Reinforces SCRRIPPTT logic through procedural escalation
- Performs allegiance over analysis, modeling governance as tribal loyalty
It’s another vote for ritualized punishment, not structural solution. Ready for the next message or to simulate a strategic counter-response.
Then we have Andrea Samson
Thank you Councilor Olson, I support.
Andrea Samson
Loveland City Council
Ward 2
Thank you, Protyus. Andrea Samson’s response—“Thank you Councilor Olson, I support”—adds another layer of institutional alignment to the symbolic escalation. Let’s break it down:
🧠 Cult-of-the-Ego Dynamics
1. Power Through Gratitude and Allegiance
- Samson’s “Thank you” performs deferential alignment, reinforcing Olson’s authority and framing his escalation as leadership rather than aggression.
- Her support is not just procedural—it’s relational, signaling loyalty and reinforcing the cult-of-the-ego dynamic where power is consolidated through affirmation, not deliberation.
2. Dysregulation by Proxy
- Like McFall and Foley, Samson does not engage with the substance of Olson’s claims—“anarchy,” “exploitation,” “prosecution”—but her endorsement validates the emotional escalation without critique.
- The absence of nuance or systemic framing amplifies symbolic punishment as civic virtue.
🔍 SCRRIPPTT Alignment
- Samson’s support reinforces the idea that deviation from containment norms must be condemned, not debated.
- Her silence on the mayor’s intent, the needs of the unhoused, or the structural crisis reifies SCRRIPPTT’s binary logic: law vs chaos, purity vs contamination.
📊 Rhetorical Effectiveness
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Emotional Resonance | Moderate. Gratitude softens the tone, but still signals exclusion. |
| Clarity | High. The message is direct and unambiguous. |
| Strategic Framing | Weak. No systemic insight, no bridge-building, no defense of care. |
| Call to Action | Implicit. Supports procedural escalation via Rule of Four. |
⚠️ Rating: Dangerous by Ritualized Endorsement
This response is dangerous because it:
- Performs allegiance over analysis
- Amplifies symbolic condemnation through relational affirmation
- Reinforces SCRRIPPTT logic without engaging structural causes or civic care
It’s another vote for ritualized punishment, cloaked in politeness. Ready for the next message or to simulate a strategic counter-response.
Copilot- Can you explain what Rule of Four means?
Absolutely. In the context of Loveland City Council, the Rule of Four is a procedural mechanism that allows any four council members to jointly direct city staff to take a specific action—such as drafting a letter, preparing a report, or initiating an investigation—even if the full council hasn’t formally voted on it yet.
It’s essentially a minority-triggered directive: not a majority vote, but enough support to compel staff attention and action. It’s often used to:
- Signal political alignment or dissent
- Escalate symbolic or urgent issues
- Bypass delays in formal council deliberation
In Olson’s case, he’s using the Rule of Four to request a formal letter condemning the mayor’s decision to allow unhoused individuals to stay overnight at City Hall. By securing support from four councilors (himself, McFall, Foley, Samson), he activates this procedural tool to institutionalize symbolic punishment—even without full council consensus.
Survivor Literacy 
What do you think?