• Initial Steps: All reports or concerns—whether vague, informal, emotional, or direct—are acknowledged promptly with care, neutrality, and validation.
• Tone: The response avoids defensiveness or premature judgment, holding space for the weight of the message while requesting clarity where needed.

Example: “Thank you for reaching out—I can only imagine how difficult this must be to share.”

• Immediate Check: Review of the accused person’s actual involvement at Tension (classes, private sessions, events, etc.).
• Transparency: Communicate the result clearly to the reporter while reinforcing that their message is being taken seriously.
• Examples: 

“This individual has not yet taken classes, though we’re aware they’ve been a customer.”

“This individual has taken classes here, I want you to know that we are very disciplined when it comes to teaching about informed consent, I take this very seriously, we are sorry to hear about this situation and will act appropriately”

• Core Principle: Consent conversations are not about authority but about collaboration, support while keeping our space and community safe(r) 
• Practice: Ask what the reporting party hopes will come of their message. This re-centers the conversation on the needs of the person harmed.

Tone: Curious, not transactional. Open-ended without making promises that can’t be upheld.Examples:“What kind of support, actions, outcome are you hoping for from us or to feel safe(r) in our space?”

Policy: Victims’ ability to access and feel safe(r) in the space will ultimately come before a respondent’s access.

• Application: If the victim indicates the accused person’s presence would impede their participation, it can trigger immediate restriction on the other’s access, at least for a time.
• Practice: A conversation with the reporter is usually requested to assess the situation more deeply.

Quote: “We hold a victim-first mentality. If this person’s presence prevents your attendance, that may very well be a deciding factor.”

• Confidential Flagging System: The accused is flagged in the system, pending a more in-depth review if/when they attempt to return.
• Standard Reintegration Requirements:
  One-on-one conversations
• Consent-focused classes
• Possible mediation or reparative steps (when appropriate and possible)

Note: No automatic bans will be imposed unless deemed necessary, legally required or explicitly warranted by risk.

• Contextual Harm Reduction: You do not act as police, but rather:
• A guardian of the space’s emotional safety
• A facilitator of education and transformation
• A mediator of complex realities
  

Foundation: Everything is grounded in communication, understanding, and preventing further harm, not punishment or public callouts. 

We recognize that every situation is nuanced and complicated. Harm must be recognized if it is minimized or disputed, our jobs become easy.

Default Requirement: Any person with a report against them, or questionable past behavior, must complete:

• A Consent Class or equivalent
• One-on-one intake with staff
• Ongoing supervision “Accountability Circles” - Closed garden requirements.
  (as needed within the space, usually soft and discreet)
• Potential requirements of an accountability circle.
• Required meetings?

Optional: Additional steps may include participation in restorative practices or community feedback loops, where safe(r) and consensual.

• You stay available for follow-ups, discussions, and resolution—especially if the situation evolves.
• You remain open to feedback about how these processes could improve.
• You document and update policies or practices as needed to better serve the community. (This document for example being one of those steps) 
• Cases will be reviewed on an ongoing basis.