Understanding SaveKenLake: Rhetorical Patterns That Keep Coming Up

SaveKenLake appeared during the election season as a public-facing website describing one neighbor as a source of risk, conflict, or decline. Because the site presented its claims as settled fact — but without providing documents, minutes, citations, or context — we were curious about the communication structures that made publishing these articles feel not just safe, but righteous.

This section is not about questioning any individual’s sincerity. It’s about understanding how certain rhetorical structures can make those stories feel more credible than they are, to the teller and to the audience.

Three patterns help explain why the SaveKenLake narrative carried so much emotional force: DARVO, Narrative Causality, and Moral Framing.

These are communication concepts widely recognized in conflict studies, and they offer us a steady, non-judgmental way to evaluate what they read and heard. We do not imply intent,

but we do recognize impact.

We've added quick tips for recognizing these communication patterns below the main article.

We do have screenshots, and to keep from amplifying false claims we will share these when we are ready for a deep dive into the documents. This has been a process getting everything down, thank you for understanding. If you need to see the originals we are using for this analysis, please reach out.

DARVO: When Accountability Gets Reversed

DARVO describes a predictable sequence that can occur when someone feels confronted or scrutinized: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

In this pattern:

• a concern is denied rather than examined,

• the person who raised the concern becomes the focus, and

• the roles reverse so that the original speaker appears harmful while the original subject appears harmed.

On SaveKenLake, residents saw this structure when questions about communication practices or policy decisions were reframed as personal aggression. Instead of engaging the documented concern, the conversation moved toward portraying one neighbor as the source of disruption.

DARVO is not about intent. It’s a communication reflex that can appear in any stressed environment, including HOAs. DARVO is very effective at shutting down a conversation and putting a speaker on their back foot. Recognizing the pattern helps us return the focus to documentation, process, and impact — the areas where governance actually happens.

Example from “Why I Oppose…”

Why I Oppose begins with criticism of a policy position on ADUs and immediately moves into a defensive structure that reframes the situation:

• Deny: The author rejects the idea that his newsletter communicated a political message.

• Attack: He characterizes a public comment as an “attack,” emphasizes tone, and portrays the comment as inappropriate.

• Reverse Victim and Offender: He reframes himself as the person harmed and the director (not the female commenter) as the instigator.

Another Example, from a candidate’s message

Deny: Minimal attention was given to the lake under a director’s [2 month, winter] leadership.

Attack: Character statements about ignoring committees, dominating discussions, interrupting, or name-calling.

Reverse Victim and Offender: The narrative frames her as the civil, reasonable actor contrasted with someone whose actions suppress collaboration.

Narrative Causality: When a Story Explains Everything

Narrative causality occurs when a single storyline becomes the explanation for many unrelated events. Instead of checking each claim against minutes, emails, or governing documents, the story itself becomes the organizing principle.

Once a narrative frame is in place:

• neutral events can appear connected,

• ordinary disagreements can be interpreted as evidence of the same story, and

• new information is filtered through what people already believe.

SaveKenLake presented a unified storyline in which many different community moments — from committee disagreements to policy questions to meeting dynamics — were interpreted through one lens. That made the claims feel cohesive even when documentation was limited or absent.

The events themselves are different in nature, but the narrative ties them together into a single causal arc: “This person causes problems; therefore all problems trace back to him.”

Narrative causality is powerful because it offers simplicity during a stressful season, and it relies on established biases. Understanding it allows us to pause, step back, and evaluate each statement on its own terms.

Moral Framing: Turning Policy Disagreements Into Ethical Judgments

Moral framing happens when a message presents a disagreement not as a difference in policy, interpretation, or procedure, but as a question of right and wrong.

Instead of saying:

• “We disagree about this covenant,”

• “We interpret this rule differently,” or

• “We have competing priorities,”

moral framing asks the reader to decide who is trustworthy, who threatens community values, or who should be viewed as unsafe.

SaveKenLake used moral framing by describing one neighbor’s participation as ethically concerning rather than grounding the discussion in documented behavior, bylaws, or meeting minutes. Moral framing can feel persuasive, especially during elections, because it activates our protective instincts. But it also makes policy conversation harder, and it discourages residents from asking ordinary questions.

Recognizing moral framing lets us return to the actual material: What do the documents say? What happened in the meeting? What is the policy question? This shift supports a calmer, more transparent community dialogue.

Why These Patterns Matter for Understanding SaveKenLake

DARVO, narrative causality, and moral framing do not tell us whether anyone acted in good or bad faith. They tell us to look deeper for evidence and emotion because of what communication patterns are being used.

SaveKenLake used these communication patterns extensively.

By naming those structures, we make space for better conversations — ones grounded in records, process, and shared responsibility rather than in narratives about individuals.

Quick Check - DARVO, Narrative Causality, or Moral Framing?

When a message — a letter, a flyer, a comment, or a website — feels heightened or personal, you can pause and run it through these three question sets:

1. Is this shifting attention away from an issue and toward a person?

(DARVO)

2. Does everything point to the same answer? Are individual statements verified?

(Narrative Causality)

3. Is this treating a disagreement as a moral judgment? Is the language charged? 

(Moral Framing)

If the answer to any of these is “yes,” it doesn’t mean anyone intended harm. It simply means the communication may be shaped by stress, pressure, or emotion — and that slowing down, checking documentation, and returning to process can help restore clarity.