First, the Dark Arts are, as the name implies, an art, not a science. Likewise, defending against them is. An artful attacker can utilize expected defenses against you; if you can be anticipated, you can be defeated. The rules, therefore, are guidelines. I'm going to stage the rules in a narrative form; they don't need to be, however, because life doesn't follow a narrative. The narrative exists to give them context, to give the reader a sense of the purpose of each rule.
Rule #0: Never follow the rules if they would result in a worse outcome.
Now, generally, the best defense is to never get attacked in the first place. Security through obscurity is your first line of defense. Translations of Sun Tzu vary somewhat, but your ideal form is to be formless, by which I mean, do not be a single point of attack, or defense. If there's a mob in your vicinity, the ideal place is neither outside it, nor leading it, but a faceless stranger among it. Even better is to be nowhere near a mob. This is the fundamental basis of not being targeted; the other two rules derive from this one.
Rule #1: Do not stand out.
Sometimes you're picked out. There's a balancing art with this next piece; you don't want to stand out, to be a point of attack, but if somebody is picking faces, you want to look slightly more dangerous than your neighbor, you want to look like a hard target. (But not when somebody is looking for hard targets. Obviously.)
Rule #2: Look like an unattractive target.
The third aspect of this is somewhat simpler, and I'll borrow the phrasing from HPMoR:
Rule #3: "I will not go around provoking strong, vicious enemies" - http://hpmor.com/chapter/19
The first triplet of rules, by and large, are about -not- being attacked in the first place. These are starting points; Rule #1, for example, culminates in not existing at all. You can't attack what doesn't exist. Rule #1 is the fundamental strategy of Anonymous. Rule #2 is about encouraging potential attackers to look elsewhere; Rule #1 is passive, and this is the passive-aggressive form of Rule #1. It's the fundamental strategy of home security - why else do you think security companies put signs in the yard saying the house is protected? Rule #3 is obvious. Don't make enemies in the first place, and particularly don't make dangerous enemies. It has critical importance beyond its obvious nature, however - enemies might not care if they get hurt in the process of hurting you. That limits your strategies for dealing with them considerably.
You've messed up the first three rules. You're under attack. What now? Manage the Fight. Your attacker starts with the home field advantage - they attacked you under the terms they are most comfortable in. Change the terms, immediately. Do not concede that advantage. Like Rule #1, Rule #4 is the basis of your First Response, and Rule #5 and Rule #6. The simplest approach is the least obvious - immediate surrender, but on your terms. If you're accused of something, admit to the weakest and least harmful version of that which is true (be specific, and deny as necessary), and say you're aware of your problem and working on improving. This works regardless of whether there's an audience or not, but works best if there is an audience.
Rule #4: Change the terms of the fight to favor yourself, or disfavor your opponent.
Sometimes, the best response to an attack is no response at all. Is anybody (important) going to take it seriously? If not, then the very worst thing you can do is to respond, because that validates the attack. If you do need to respond, respond as lightly as possible; do not respond as if the accusation is serious or matters, because that lends weight to the accusation. If there's no audience, or a limited audience, responding gives your attacker an opportunity to continue the attack. If there's a risk of them physically assaulting you, ignoring them is probably a bad idea; a polite non-response is ideal in that situation. (For crowds that pose a risk of physically assault you... you need more rules than I'm going to write here.)
Rule #5: Use the minimum force necessary to respond.
It's tempting to attack back: Don't. You're going to escalate the situation, and escalation is going to favor the person who is better at this; worse, in a public Dark Arts battle, even the better person is going to take some hits. Nobody wins. Instead, mine the battlefield, and make sure your opponent sees you mining the battlefield. If you're accused of something, suggest that both you and your opponent know the accused thing isn't as uncommon as generally represented. Hint at shared knowledge. Make it clear you'll take them out with you. If they're actually good at this, they'll get the hint. (This is why it's critically important not to make enemies. You really, really don't want somebody around who doesn't mind going down with you, and your use of this strategy becomes difficult.)
Rule #6: Make escalation prohibitively costly.
You might recognize some elements of martial arts here. There are similarities, enough that one is useful to the other, but they are not the same.
You're in a fight, and your opponent is persistent, or you messed up and now things are serious. What now? First, continue to Manage the Fight. Your goal now is to end the fight; the total damage you're going to suffer is a function of both the amplitude of escalation and the length of the fight. You've failed to manage the amplitude; manage the length.
Rule #7: End fights fast.
At this point you've been reasonable and defensive, and that hasn't worked. Now you need to go on the offensive. Your defense should be light and easy, continuing to react with the lightest necessary touch, continuing to ignore anything you don't need to react to; your attack should be brutal, and put your opponent on the defensive immediately. Attack them on the basis of their harassment of you, first, and then build up to any personal attacks you've been holding back on - your goal is to impart a tone of somebody who has been put-upon and had enough.
Rule #8: Hit hard.
And immediately stop. If you've pulled off your counterattack right, they'll offer up defenses. Just quit the battle. Do not be tempted by a follow-up attack; you were angry, you vented your anger, you're done. By not following up on the attack, by not attacking their defenses, you're leaving them no reasonable way to respond. Any continuing attacks can be safely ignored; they will look completely pathetic going forward.
Rule #9: Recognize when you've won, and stop.
Defense follows different rules than attack. In defense, you aren't trying to inflict wounds, you're trying to avoid them. Ending the fight quickly is paramount to this.
It's a CFAR concept that's explained at their workshops but which hasn't been elaborated anywhere online, to my knowledge. (I take it you haven't been to a CFAR workshop yet, by the way? I think that their stuff and yours would have amazing amounts of synergy potential.)
The idea is that you have a small group of people, about 3 or 4, and then you go around the circle and each person gets to discuss their "Hamming question", named after Richard Hamming who'd go around asking other scientists, "what are the most important problems in your field, and why aren't you working on them". The Hamming question's the application of that to your life - "what's the biggest problem in your life, and what would it take to solve it". The other people are there to help the person who's trying to figure out their Hamming question, with e.g. probing questions and suggestions.
Hamming circles are a special case of "debugging circles", where the idea (3-4 people in circle, discussing each person's issue in turn) is the same, but you're also allowed to use the circle to discuss something that's not actually your Hamming question, but something smaller. I think Christian might have been thinking about debugging circles in general.
Here's a set of guidelines for running debugging circles (though I prefer to call them something like "growth circles" or "development circles") that I came up with after some experience with them:
Etiquette
Only bring up something if you actually want a solution for it. Everyone has times when they just need to vent and want sympathy rather than solutions, but development circles aren't the place for that. This doesn't mean that you would need to accept any suggestion that the others bring up, but it does mean that that you should be open to others offering suggestions in general. Once the session ends, you're free to just ignore and forget anything that didn't seem to make sense to you.
Be courteous of others and their time. Do your best to make sure that everyone, both you and the others, get a roughly equal share of the group's attention. If you have lots of problems in your life, don't dump all of them on the group at once, but rather focus on one or a small set of related ones. If it starts looking like the discussion has gotten stuck on one person's issues for an extended time and the others might not have a chance to have their issues discussed, gently but firmly suggest moving on to the next person. Try to be considerate enough to pass on your own turn early enough that someone else doesn't need to prompt you to do so.
If someone is undergoing a particularly difficult time or has a particularly important issue going on, it's alright to sometimes spend a disproportionate time on them: but you should try to avoid being that person each time.
But have a fair respect of your own time, as well. The opposite also applies: if you genuinely feel that there's nothing in your life that needs discussing, you're free to cut your own turn short, but if you do it many occasions in a row, you're probably not taking full advantage of the group. If nothing else, you can always use the group to get an opinion on any assumptions behind your current plans. While you don't want to go overtime on your turn, you also don't want to cut your own turn short. You have a right to get help from the group in return for helping others: stick to that right.
Don't proselytize your view. Maybe you're completely certain that the cause of the other person's problems is that they don't have cat ears as a part of their attire, which would totally fix everything if they just changed that. You're free to think that, but if they disagree with your suggestion, don't get stuck arguing but let it go.
Approaches
Start by trying to understand what problem the person is trying to solve. "I've been trying to sign up for dance lessons but can never seem to get around it." One possible approach would be to immediately start offering ways for the person to sign up for dance lessons. Often a more fruitful one would be to first ask - why do you want to attend dance lessons? Maybe it turns out that the person doesn't actually care about learning to dance, but is feeling bad because their friend, a great dancer, always gets all the attention at parties. Then the actual problem is not "how to learn to dance" but "how to get other people to notice me". It's quite possible that not knowing to dance isn't actually the biggest issue there.
Test your understanding of the problem. When you're formulating an understanding of the problem, it can be useful to frequently verbalize it to the other person to make sure that you've understood correctly. "So you seem to be feeling bad because your girlfriend just became the President of your country while you mostly spend time playing video games, is that right?"
A rule of thumb that I sometimes use is "do I feel like I understand this problem and its causes well enough that I could explain to a third person why this person wants to solve it and why they haven't been able to solve it yet?" If the answer is no, try asking more questions first.
Even "obvious" problems may benefit from questions. Someone once mentioned that they tend to often jump to being critical of others, which tends to be harmful. Here the causal mechanism seemed to be pretty obvious, but asking "how does it tend to be harmful" was still useful in bringing out details of the exact nature of the typical criticism and how people tended to react to that.
Look for trigger-action patterns. "I always end up being on the computer and wasting time and then feeling bad." What specific things on the computer act as time-wasters, and how exactly does the person end up doing those things? Maybe they often feel bored or anxious, which causes them to open Facebook, which causes them to get lost in a maze of discussions and links. Would there be a way to either remove the anxiety, or find a new action to carry out when anxious? Which one would be easier?
(comment length limit hit, continued in next comment)
(comment continued)
Look for positive and negative reinforcers in the environment. "I often post a link to Facebook, and then I keep returning to Facebook throughout the day because I want to see whether it's accumulated new likes and comments." Here, logging on to Facebook after posting a link keeps getting reinforced by the accumulation of comments and likes, which provide a reward each time that the page is opened and there's a new one. Could something be done to eliminate those reinforcers? ("If anyone sees me responding to a comment or p... (read more)