mistermoo
To answer your last part, #7, in the FGC people revere games that are like ST (Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo) that have had 20+ years of competitive gameplay. This is a game people have been innovating in for a long time and is basically the go-to example for how a FG game can evolve over time. In the past few years many option selects and system quirks have been discovered that changed many MUs.
This goes directly against the idea of constant patches to push the metagame in different directions. I think the reason aggressive MOBA-style patching is not accepted generally by the FGC is due to the fact it can undo months or more of work in characters. In MOBAs, top players play much of the cast at the highest level. It is much easier to adjust to the patching by saying "well, this character got nerfed, going to this other one".
Patching in FGs is more akin to WoW or other MMOs that have PVP. If your character gets nerfed, you can be SOL as you have spent months on that certain character.
In my opinion, both ideologies have their own merits. I just don't think patching for "breathing life into the game" is something that is good when the game is only 2 months old. Big balance-change patching is something that is more appropriate for yearly intervals for FGs, IMO.
I think what has been done for SF4 helped keep the game fresh, even though there was some hiccups (Original AE being a balance debacle). I would love if other games (such as MK9) got similar treatment of a yearly balance update.