We're more or less talking past each other at this point. I haven't advocated for a highly restrictive filter, nor have I made any arbitrary demands on my interlocutors -- rather, very specific ones. Very well.

The fallacy I was referring to is basic ad hominem - "You haven't read X, therefore I can safely ignore your argument".

I can't say for certain that that situation doesn't occur, but I haven't seen it in recent memory. The situation I've seen more frequently runs like this:

A: "Here's an argument showing why this post is wrong."

B: "EY covers this objection here in this [linked sequence]."

A: "Oh, I haven't read the sequences."

At this point, I would say B is justified in ignoring A's argument, and doing so doesn't constitute a logical fallacy.