Yes, that all rings true to me, particularly the fallacy fallacy part of it.
What the bad actors will do is just make noise with the dodges like they do everything else, "that's a dodge!" style, regardless of merit.
They don't care about merit, only volume and domination of the discussion.
And they don't care, because for them it's about affirmation, my club is the right club because I'm in it kind of thing. And if you aren't in my club, fuck you.
The place where I've been learning for years now has almost no moderation. Early on, I established some bonds and with some other group members, set some norms:
1. Support what you say
2. Words carry the weight you give them.
A "fuck you" often is returned with, "hugs and kisses, and how can I help you get it all out so you feel better?" kinds of responses. Those drive dominators, who don't have any material support for their advocacy, seriously nuts, while garnering popular support for the person returning fire in that fashion, BTW. Beautiful.
On the other hand, "I am disappointed in you" from a valued and respected contributor packs a big punch!
3. Offensive words are as offensive as you think they are.
This means profanity, etc... are OK.
Always being civil works in interesting ways. One way is that clearly bent positions, like say bigotry, are elevated to "just another valid opinion" and that will resonate to "everybody has a right to their opinion" kinds of things.
The truth is, we do have that right, but we don't have the right to be respected for those opinions.
So the other norm ended up being:
4. Act the ass, get called an ass. Don't like it? Don't be an ass.
Quite effective at marginalizing trolls, given the group really does understand the other norms.
Moderation is something I struggle with frankly. It is nearly always gamed or abused. Take an always be nice rule. That means being nice to the racist too. Really? Maybe being a racist should cost a person some, and they might potentially reconsider racism.
On the other hand, moderating criminal posts is necessary.
Your additions are good ones!
I have not encountered "backwards", lol! Not sure what I would have done with that one. Yes, "secret" is all about #5. Rapid deadline is another good one.
That list was an abbreviated one. Most popular kind of thing.
I feel the same way about votes as I do moderation. Those are nearly always gamed.
Both moderation and votes work well when politics and religion are not part of the discussion. Here at HN, I do see the equivalent in some economic discussions, where there is basically some religion in play, but it's minor by comparison to many other places.
What I prefer is some strong voices able to take it better than people give it, who can set norms and manage things toward some productive end.
Problem with that is bias. There is always bias. It takes considerable numbers of us working over a sustained amount of time to be mostly free of bias.
Rather than attempt to claim no bias, I believe it's better to just embrace it, and then attempt to find common ground without actually having to say people are wrong or bad.