I think it might help some participants inexperienced with the SE model to have an overview of how real-life management of a (synthetic) discussion problem is generally handled -- flagging, digressive comment chain, the usual suspects -- via community consensus mechanisms.
It might help folks understand how SE differs from other systems, and why --if they are feeling ganged up on -- they should first consider whether the objections might be valid, why comments should be assumed to be volatile (and rewritten/quoted as answers if they should be retained), why peer editing is supported and should be accepted as an attempt to help improve the question, etc...
A step by step example to refer people to, which goes through this all as a system, rather than as isolated subunits and as practical operations rather than architecture, just might help people see how the SE process works.
It may already exist, eg up in the SE-Meta layer. If so, having and using pointers to it (and making sure things like close-reason explanations point to it so folks can better understand their issue in context) might avoid some conflicts and help people decide whether to stay with the SE model or better understand it.
Is anything actually actionable here or better yet already written so we could point to it?