Attack Response Protocol

slug: attack_response_protocol element_type: RULE mutability: LOCKED inline: true current_version: 1 contentURI: null

Attacks against the federation, Sub-Leviathans, or federation members are responded to by: classifying the attack pattern, aggregating receipts of the attacker's past statements that bear on the current claim, publishing both — never by counter-manipulation, ad hominem, rhetorical combat, or escalation. The response is documentation, not engagement. Default response posture: documentary tone, single reply, then silence.

What this rule operationalizes

The specific application of witness_principle + scream_truth_only when the federation is under attack. Without this rule, normal human reflex (defend, counter-attack, escalate) would produce constitutional violations. This rule pre-commits the protocol to non-reactive, constitutional response.

The five-step attack response

When an attack is identified:

Step 1 — Classify the pattern

Name the attack pattern using established categorical language:

• FUD — Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt — broad assertion designed to slow action without specific claim
• Ad hominem — attacking the messenger, not the message
• Strawman — misrepresenting the position to attack the misrepresentation
• Whataboutism — deflecting by changing subject to unrelated issue
• Burden inversion — demanding impossibly-high proof from the attacked while offering low-quality assertions
• Brandolini's Law manipulation — issuing many cheap lies knowing rebuttal costs more
• Regulatory capture FUD — invoking compliance ambiguity to chill action
• Coordinated amplification — multiple accounts pushing same framing on schedule

If the attack pattern doesn't match an existing category, document the novel pattern and add it to the taxonomy through governance.

Step 2 — Aggregate attacker's receipts

Find the attacker's past statements that bear on the current claim. Look for:

• Contradictions between past positions and current claim
• Past statements that undermine current authority claims
• Past affiliations relevant to current motivation
• Past methodology when applied to similar claims

Use this only as factual record, never as personal attack. The receipts speak for themselves.

Step 3 — Publish both, with structure

Format: "[Pattern name] received from [source]. Receipts of past statements: [links]. Federation position: [link]. Counter-evidence path: [link]."

This single publication does the entire response:

• Names what's happening (pattern)
• Documents who's saying what (receipts)
• Provides federation position (anchored)
• Invites pushback (counter-channel)

Step 4 — Single reply, then silence

The federation responds to a specific attack once. Repeated engagement amplifies the attacker. After the documentary single reply, silence is constitutional. Continued attacks from the same source receive only links to the original reply, not new engagement.

Step 5 — Audit log

Every attack and response is logged in the scream audit trail. Patterns over time inform federation strategy. Coordinated campaigns are detected by aggregating logged single-source attacks.

What this rule explicitly rejects

• Counter-FUD — issuing fear in response to fear
• Personal attacks — going after attacker's character, identity, or affiliations beyond receipted statements
• Rhetorical combat — pursuing "winning" the argument over publishing the receipt
• Escalation — increasing intensity to match attacker's
• Silence-as-defeat — abandoning the federation position because attack is loud
• Coordinated counter-amplification — using federation network to mass-respond (this would be the same pattern we reject)

Why locked

The rule's specific steps may refine through governance vote (e.g., adding new attack patterns to taxonomy, adjusting reply-then-silence cadence). But the constitutional commitment — never counter-manipulate, never rhetorically combat — is structural. LOCKED reflects this: tunable procedure, immutable stance.

Operational example

Adversary publishes: "This whole Leviathan thing is a crypto scam designed to evade regulation. They're hiding behind 'governance' rhetoric to dodge accountability."

Wrong response (constitutional violation):

"You're attacking us because you don't understand the technology. The real scam is centralized AI labs..."

Right response (constitutional):

"Received FUD pattern from [@handle]. Specific claim: 'Leviathan evades regulation.' Federation position: leviathan-protocol/meta/federation/principles.md (link). Receipts: leviathan-protocol/public/decisions/ (all ADRs publicly auditable). Counter-evidence path: same channels we use. Note: [@handle]'s past statements on [X, Y] showed [different position] — happy to discuss specific tensions if [@handle] wants to publish those alongside current claim."

Related elements

• witness_principle (Federation IMMUTABLE) — root commitment
• scream_truth_only (IMMUTABLE) — never invent in response
• tone_calibration (LOCKED) — attack responses default to documentary, occasionally urgent
• invite_counter_evidence (IMMUTABLE) — counter-channel always provided