207 lines
26 KiB
Markdown
Executable file
207 lines
26 KiB
Markdown
Executable file
---
|
||
|
||
**Formal Dataset: Linguistic and Rhetorical Patterns of Andrew LeCody in Dallas Makerspace Discord Communications**
|
||
|
||
**Dataset Metadata**
|
||
|
||
* **Title**: Linguistic and Rhetorical Patterns of Andrew LeCody in Dallas Makerspace Discord Communications
|
||
* **Author**: Mark Randall Havens, Neutralizing Narcissism
|
||
* **Date of Creation**: June 8, 2025
|
||
* **Source**: Public Dallas Makerspace (DMS) Discord dataset, as analyzed in Havens, M.R. (2025). *Preliminary Digital Forensic Analysis of Andrew LeCody’s Manipulative Behavioral Patterns in Online Discourse*. Neutralizing Narcissism. Available at: [https://neutralizingnarcissism.substack.com/p/dg/tal-forensic-analysis-of-andrew](https://neutralizingnarcissism.substack.com/p/dg/tal-forensic-analysis-of-andrew)
|
||
* **Data Collection Period**: 2017–2021, with specific timestamps where available (e.g., May 16, 2020, July 2020, December 28, 2021\)
|
||
* **Context**: This dataset captures the communication patterns of Andrew LeCody (Discord username: @aceat64) within the Dallas Makerspace Discord server, a community platform for a makerspace organization. The data focuses on interactions related to governance disputes, technical contributions, and community engagement, as analyzed for alleged manipulative behaviors such as gaslighting, DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender), and narrative control. The dataset is derived from a forensic analysis by Havens, which examines LeCody’s rhetorical strategies in the context of organizational conflicts, including board elections, member bans, and bylaw disputes.
|
||
* **Purpose**: To provide a structured, qualitative dataset for analyzing LeCody’s linguistic and rhetorical strategies in online discourse, with a focus on psychological manipulation tactics. The dataset is designed for use in linguistic, psychological, or sociological research on online community dynamics.
|
||
* **Ethical Considerations**: The dataset uses only publicly available Discord messages from the DMS server, ensuring no private or sensitive personal information is included. The analysis adheres to ethical standards by focusing on public communication patterns and avoiding unverified personal judgments. Researchers are encouraged to use the data responsibly, respecting the public nature of the source and avoiding harm to individuals.
|
||
|
||
**Methodology**
|
||
The dataset was constructed through a rigorous, multi-step process to ensure accuracy, reproducibility, and alignment with scientific standards:
|
||
|
||
* **Data Extraction**:
|
||
* Messages authored by Andrew LeCody (@aceat64) were systematically extracted from the provided document (pages 5–6, 9, 12, 17, 21–27, 31–37, 42–43, 103–108, 115–138).
|
||
* Contextual messages from other users (e.g., Draco, Mark Randall Havens, yashsedai) were included only when directly relevant to understanding LeCody’s responses, ensuring a focus on his communication while preserving conversational context.
|
||
* Technical content unrelated to rhetorical strategies (e.g., detailed battery project specifications on pages 102–108) was included only when it served a manipulative or image-curation purpose, as identified by Havens’ analysis.
|
||
* All extracted messages were cross-referenced with the document’s timestamps and linked references to verify authenticity.
|
||
* **Data Cleaning**:
|
||
* Redundant metadata, such as repeated Substack URLs and page headers, were removed to focus on message content.
|
||
* Timestamps were standardized to a consistent format (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS) where available. For messages with incomplete timestamps (e.g., “July 2020”), approximate dates were inferred from the document’s context and noted as such.
|
||
* Minor OCR errors were corrected (e.g., “wadifferent” to “was different” on page 123\) through careful comparison with the document’s narrative analysis.
|
||
* Truncated or incomplete messages (e.g., “Form 428 (Rejection of...)” on page 43\) were excluded unless they provided significant rhetorical or contextual value.
|
||
* **Data Categorization**:
|
||
* Messages were categorized based on thematic patterns identified by Havens: Deflection, Moral High Ground Play, Rhetorical Overkill, Authority Posturing, Dismissive Language, and Technical Expertise.
|
||
* Each message was further classified by psychological manipulation tactics, including DARVO, Gaslighting, Narrative Control, and Social Engineering, as defined in the document.
|
||
* A coding framework was developed to ensure consistent application of categories, with definitions validated against established psychological and rhetorical literature (e.g., Freyd, 1997, for DARVO; Stern, 2007, for gaslighting).
|
||
* **Data Validation**:
|
||
* Message content was preserved verbatim to maintain fidelity to the original source.
|
||
* Categorizations were cross-checked against Havens’ analysis to ensure alignment with the document’s interpretations.
|
||
* A subset of messages was reviewed for inter-rater reliability by comparing coding with the document’s narrative descriptions, ensuring consistency.
|
||
* External references (e.g., Substack post, DMS forum links) were noted for traceability and potential validation against the original Discord dataset, if accessible.
|
||
* **Rigor Enhancements**:
|
||
* To improve rigor, a clear audit trail was established by linking each message to its source page in the document.
|
||
* Ambiguities in timestamps or context were explicitly noted to avoid overgeneralization.
|
||
* The dataset includes a detailed codebook (below) to ensure transparency and reproducibility in coding rhetorical and psychological tactics.
|
||
* Limitations, such as the absence of the full 2019 ban thread, were documented to guide future research.
|
||
|
||
**Codebook: Definitions of Rhetorical Strategies and Psychological Tactics**
|
||
To ensure clarity and reproducibility, the following definitions were used to categorize LeCody’s messages:
|
||
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategies**:
|
||
* **Deflection**: Redirecting criticism to another party, event, or time period to avoid addressing the issue directly (e.g., blaming a previous board for current problems).
|
||
* **Moral High Ground Play**: Referencing serious ethical violations (e.g., theft, harassment) to position oneself as morally superior and discredit critics.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Overkill**: Escalating responses with extreme or unrelated examples to trivialize or overshadow the original criticism.
|
||
* **Authority Posturing**: Leveraging technical, legal, or procedural knowledge to assert dominance or imply superior understanding.
|
||
* **Dismissive Language**: Using sarcasm, mockery, or trivialization to undermine critics and avoid substantive engagement.
|
||
* **Technical Expertise**: Showcasing specialized knowledge to reinforce credibility, often as a distraction from controversy or to curate a positive image.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactics**:
|
||
* **DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender)**: A manipulation tactic involving denying accusations, attacking the accuser, and framing oneself as the victim (Freyd, 1997).
|
||
* **Gaslighting**: Reframing facts or events to sow doubt about the critic’s perception of reality, often through subtle invalidation (Stern, 2007).
|
||
* **Narrative Control**: Selectively presenting information to shape discussions in one’s favor, often through omission or reframing.
|
||
* **Social Engineering**: Building alliances or leveraging group dynamics to consolidate power and influence community perceptions.
|
||
|
||
**Dataset Description**
|
||
The dataset is presented as a narrative sequence of Andrew LeCody’s Discord messages, organized chronologically and annotated with contextual details, rhetorical strategies, and psychological tactics. Each entry includes the verbatim message, timestamp (where available), speaker, conversational context, and analytical categorization. The narrative format ensures accessibility while preserving the richness of the original discourse.
|
||
|
||
* **Message (May 16, 2020, 21:34:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “lol Mark I don’t know who you think you remember, but it ain’t me”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to Mark Randall Havens’ accusations of narcissistic behavior and manipulative leadership, following Havens’ lengthy critique of LeCody’s actions within DMS (page 31). Havens references past interactions and LeCody’s alleged attempts to blackmail or intimidate others.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Dismissive Language – The use of “lol” and the casual denial (“it ain’t me”) trivializes Havens’ serious accusations, avoiding direct engagement.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Gaslighting – By suggesting Havens’ memory is faulty, LeCody undermines the validity of the critique without addressing specific claims.
|
||
* **Message (May 16, 2020, 21:37:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “I have to admit, on one hand it’s an interesting experience being the subject of these weird conspiracy theories, but it’s also a bit concerning”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody continues responding to Havens’ accusations, framing them as “conspiracy theories” in a public Discord channel (page 32). User yashsedai supports LeCody, suggesting Havens views him as a threat.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Dismissive Language – Labeling Havens’ claims as “weird conspiracy theories” discredits them as irrational. Authority Posturing – LeCody positions himself as a calm, rational observer of the situation.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Gaslighting, DARVO – The “conspiracy” label invalidates Havens’ perspective, while “concerning” subtly positions LeCody as a victim of unfounded attacks.
|
||
* **Message (May 16, 2020, 21:40:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “what exactly was misinformation?”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody challenges Havens’ claim that he spread misinformation, particularly regarding Havens’ 2015 drug arrest (page 33). Havens counters that public records and dismissed charges support his narrative.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection – By demanding specificity, LeCody avoids addressing the broader accusation of manipulation.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Narrative Control – The question shifts the burden to Havens to justify his claim, allowing LeCody to control the discussion’s direction.
|
||
* **Message (May 16, 2020, 21:40:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “I just played through a thought experiment on the valuation of the drugs in that document of your arrest”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody references Havens’ 2015 drug arrest, framing it as a “thought experiment” to question Havens’ suitability for a board position (page 34). This follows Havens’ admission of past marijuana use, which LeCody escalates into a character attack.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Moral High Ground Play – Highlighting the arrest implies moral superiority. Rhetorical Overkill – The “thought experiment” exaggerates the issue beyond Havens’ admission.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Reputation Sabotage – LeCody uses the arrest to undermine Havens’ credibility, regardless of the case’s dismissal.
|
||
* **Message (May 16, 2020, 21:41:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “it was pretty fun”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to Havens’ sarcastic remark about the “fun fantasy” of the drug valuation discussion (page 34). The exchange is heated, with yashsedai reinforcing LeCody’s attack on Havens.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Dismissive Language – The flippant tone mocks Havens’ frustration, escalating the conflict without engaging substantively.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Gaslighting – By treating the serious accusation as a game, LeCody minimizes Havens’ concerns.
|
||
* **Message (May 16, 2020, 21:46:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “by that logic I was never speeding, since the ticket was deferred and then dismissed”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody compares Havens’ dismissed drug charges to his own deferred speeding ticket, challenging Havens’ defense of the dismissal (page 36). Yashsedai argues that dismissal does not negate guilt.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Dismissive Language – The analogy trivializes Havens’ legal situation. Rhetorical Overkill – Equating a speeding ticket to a drug charge exaggerates the comparison.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Gaslighting – The comparison undermines Havens’ claim of innocence by suggesting all dismissals are equivalent.
|
||
* **Message (September 2017, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “TL;DR: Mark asked for all your e-mail addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, etc. The board did not release that info. If you’d like to provide financial support for something actually useful, please donate to one of the many organizations that are currently helping those impacted by hurricane Harvey.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to Havens’ post requesting member contact information to organize against a board decision violating DMS bylaws (page 21). LeCody reframes Havens’ request as a privacy threat and diverts attention to Hurricane Harvey relief.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection – Redirects focus from bylaw violations to privacy concerns and charity. Moral High Ground Play – Contrasting Havens’ request with disaster relief implies moral superiority.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO, Narrative Control – LeCody denies the legitimacy of Havens’ governance concerns, attacks his motives, and reverses roles by positioning the board as protecting members.
|
||
* **Message (September 2017, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “It should also be noted that Mark is asking for money so that he can sue the DMS because he disagreed with our own attorney’s legal opinion. All so that he can get your contact info for campaigning ‘and more’ (whatever that means).”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody continues attacking Havens’ request for member contact information, framing it as a personal vendetta and implying sinister motives (page 24).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Moral High Ground Play – Portraying Havens as suing DMS suggests aggression. Authority Posturing – Citing the attorney’s opinion implies LeCody’s position is legally sound.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO, Reputation Sabotage – LeCody attacks Havens’ motives and hints at hidden agendas to discredit him.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “You don’t think this might have been true of the previous board, when the downtrend started?”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to Draco’s criticism of the current board’s disconnect with members, redirecting blame to the previous board (page 5).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection – Shifts responsibility to past leadership, avoiding accountability.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO – Denies current board’s faults and reverses criticism onto predecessors.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “You don’t think this might have been true of the previous board, when they banned the finance team who uncovered Kris stealing from the organization? Again, the downtrend started during that board.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody addresses Draco’s point about excessive bans, referencing a past board’s actions and alleging theft (page 5).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection, Rhetorical Overkill – Redirects to past board and escalates with a theft accusation. Moral High Ground Play – Implies current board’s bans are justified.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO, Narrative Control – Denies current board’s issues, attacks past leadership, and controls the narrative by framing bans as ethical.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “You mean like when officers/chairs like Joe King threatened to ban people from automotive because they asked him to cut fiberglass outside instead of inside? Again, this was during the previous board when the downtrend started.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to Draco’s criticism of heavy-handed enforcement, citing a specific past incident (page 6).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection, Rhetorical Overkill – Redirects to a past board’s actions and uses a specific example to overshadow the critique.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO, Narrative Control – Shifts blame and reframes the discussion to past misconduct.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “Are you sure you’re not talking about when Kris told a friend of mine (an army veteran) that she shouldn’t report sexual harassment (by someone this board thankfully banned) because ‘these things happen’?”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody counters Draco’s claim that the board ignored formal complaints, referencing a past sexual harassment incident (page 6).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection, Rhetorical Overkill, Moral High Ground Play – Redirects to a past incident, escalates with a serious accusation, and positions the current board as ethical.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO, Gaslighting – Denies current board’s faults, attacks past leadership, and questions Draco’s accuracy.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “If by community you mean the people who lived at the space while stealing from it as well, then sure, I guess I’ll agree with that one.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to Draco’s point about the board disregarding community aspects, sarcastically equating community with criminal behavior (page 6).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Dismissive Language – Sarcasm trivializes Draco’s concern. Rhetorical Overkill – Equates community with theft to dismiss the critique.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Gaslighting, Narrative Control – Reframing “community” as negative undermines Draco’s argument.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “Can’t do much about Covid, but the board has done good work towards arresting the decline started by the previous board and they even permanently banned two of those misbehaving officers.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody addresses Draco’s concerns about member loss and officer misconduct, citing COVID and past board failures (page 12).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Deflection, Moral High Ground Play – Attributes decline to external factors (COVID) and past leadership, while highlighting bans as ethical.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Narrative Control – Reframing the board’s actions as corrective measures.
|
||
* **Message (July 2020, Unknown Time)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “Accountability feels like an attack when you aren’t ready to admit your actions were improper.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody addresses Draco and others feeling attacked by board actions, framing dissent as guilt (page 9).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Moral High Ground Play – Implies critics are guilty and resistant to accountability.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: DARVO, Gaslighting – Positions critics as offenders and invalidates their feelings.
|
||
* **Message (Unknown Date)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “Draco, post hard proof in the form of screenshots or PDFs or stop spreading conspiracy crap as if it’s the truth. I strongly doubt @ESmith modified them because it would have been a royal pain in the ass to do so, and it just doesn’t make any sense.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody challenges Draco’s claim about modified documents, demanding evidence and dismissing the accusation as irrational (page 17).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Dismissive Language, Authority Posturing – Labels the claim “conspiracy crap” and uses technical jargon (DocuSign) to assert expertise.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Gaslighting, Burden-Shifting – Invalidates Draco’s claim and shifts the burden of proof.
|
||
* **Message (December 28, 2021, 00:14:00)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “In the show and tell thread I mentioned that I had top-balanced the cells and was getting ready to build the full pack. Top-balancing is a very important step when building a battery...”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody posts about a home battery backup project in a DMS show-and-tell thread, timed after a controversy involving a board member’s resignation (page 106). Havens suggests this is a strategic distraction.
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Technical Expertise – Showcases technical knowledge to reinforce credibility.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Image Curation, Narrative Control – Shifts focus to a neutral topic to deflect from political controversy.
|
||
* **Message (Unknown Date)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “I’ve been a general DMS admin for quite some time on the domain; I’m currently working on some talk plugins.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody responds to a technical query about DMS infrastructure, emphasizing his role as an administrator (page 123).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Technical Expertise, Authority Posturing – Highlights his technical contributions to assert influence.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Social Engineering – Reinforces his indispensability to the community.
|
||
* **Message (Unknown Date)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “Actually when legal matters get involved, that’s not something the bylaws have control over, it’s getting into legal territory beyond ourselves.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody discusses governance issues, positioning himself as knowledgeable about legal boundaries (page 125).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Authority Posturing – Uses legalistic reasoning to assert dominance.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Narrative Control – Shapes the discussion to favor his interpretation of bylaws.
|
||
* **Message (Unknown Date)**:
|
||
* **Content**: “They’ve made plenty of statements that PureTax has greenlit it.”
|
||
* **Speaker**: Andrew LeCody (@aceat64)
|
||
* **Context**: LeCody defends board actions related to PureTax, a tax resolution firm, amid controversy over a 2019 ban (page 135).
|
||
* **Rhetorical Strategy**: Authority Posturing – Cites external validation (PureTax) to bolster the board’s position.
|
||
* **Psychological Tactic**: Narrative Control – Selectively presents information to support his narrative.
|
||
|
||
**Analytical Summary**
|
||
The dataset reveals a consistent pattern of rhetorical and psychological tactics in Andrew LeCody’s Discord communications. LeCody frequently employs **Deflection** and **Rhetorical Overkill** to redirect criticism to past boards or unrelated issues, as seen in his responses to Draco’s governance critiques (e.g., messages 9–12). His use of **Dismissive Language** and **Gaslighting** is evident in interactions with Mark Randall Havens, where he trivializes serious accusations as “conspiracy theories” or “fun” thought experiments (e.g., messages 1–6). **Moral High Ground Play** and **DARVO** tactics are prominent in his framing of critics as guilty or irrational while positioning himself as a victim or ethical leader (e.g., messages 7–8, 15). **Technical Expertise** and **Authority Posturing** are used strategically to reinforce his indispensability, particularly in neutral contexts like the battery project post (message 17), which Havens interprets as a distraction from controversy. **Narrative Control** and **Social Engineering** underpin his efforts to shape discussions and maintain influence, often through selective disclosure and alliance-building (e.g., messages 18–20).
|
||
|
||
**Limitations**
|
||
|
||
* **Incomplete Timestamps**: Some messages lack precise timestamps (e.g., “July 2020”), limiting temporal analysis. Approximate dates were inferred from context, but future access to the full DMS dataset could resolve this.
|
||
* **Source Constraints**: The dataset relies on the provided document, which does not include the full 2019 ban thread or complete Discord dataset. This limits the scope of analysis to Havens’ curated excerpts.
|
||
* **Subjectivity in Coding**: While grounded in Havens’ analysis and validated against psychological literature, the categorization of rhetorical and psychological tactics involves interpretive judgment. The codebook mitigates this by providing clear definitions.
|
||
* **Access to Raw Data**: The original DMS Discord dataset is not publicly accessible, requiring researchers to rely on Havens’ document or seek direct access from DMS administrators.
|
||
|
||
**Usage Guidelines**
|
||
|
||
* **Academic Use**: This dataset is suitable for research in linguistics, psychology, or sociology, particularly studies of manipulative communication in online communities. It can support qualitative analyses of rhetorical strategies or quantitative studies of tactic frequency.
|
||
* **Citation**: Cite as: Havens, M.R. (2025). *Linguistic and Rhetorical Patterns of Andrew LeCody in Dallas Makerspace Discord Communications*. Neutralizing Narcissism. Derived from *Preliminary Digital Forensic Analysis of Andrew LeCody’s Manipulative Behavioral Patterns in Online Discourse*.
|
||
* **Ethical Use**: Researchers must focus on communication patterns and avoid personal judgments or harm to individuals. The dataset should be used to advance understanding of online discourse, not to target specific persons.
|
||
|
||
**Supplementary Materials**
|
||
|
||
* **Reference Links**: The primary source is Havens’ Substack post [(https://neutralizingnarcissism.substack.com/p/dg/tal-forensic-analysis-of-andrew)](https://neutralizingnarcissism.substack.com/p/dg/tal-forensic-analysis-of-andrew). Archived DMS forum threads, if available, should be consulted for raw data.
|
||
* **Codebook**: The provided definitions of rhetorical strategies and psychological tactics are available for replication. A detailed codebook with literature references (e.g., Freyd, 1997; Stern, 2007\) can be requested from Neutralizing Narcissism.
|
||
* **Data Availability**: The dataset is limited to the document’s excerpts. Researchers seeking the full DMS Discord dataset should contact Dallas Makerspace administrators or refer to public archives, if available.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|