I agree that is one way to interpret those guidelines, but I don't think it is the only way to do it.

It is completely possible for one person to use bad faith techniques without doing it on purpose. You can assume they did that by mistake, and point that out. If after being presented with the evidence they simply refuse to take it, you can continue from there. But be prepared to be presented by their own counter-argument, though.

According to the article always assuming bad faith by the other side is part of the problem that we are lead into. So by calling for the assumption of good faith we can avoid falling into the spiral of bad faith communication.

Thank you. I wondered how many others have reached the same conclusion. I know I did almost immediately