[Gabe]

*snip*

This entire thread is more than enough evidence that there needs to be a way to anonymously submit feedback. I mean just look at the sheer effort that has gone into attempting to expose/degrade a person who has wanted to stay anonymous.  Y'all have all but outright asked who the person is.

I strongly disagree with this notion, no one has tried to expose or degrade the person or ask who this person is. We're having a general discussion about anonymous feedback when it comes to its merits, how it comes across(i.e. hostility or accusatory), its context, and it being meaningful. No one here is arguing that anonymous feedback shouldn't be a thing. Everyone thus far has agreed that anonymous feedback is acceptable. It's a debate not on anonymous feedback itself, just how it should be presented, discussed, and how they should be grounded in reality and be fairly discussed and defended. This is a good discussion to have, no one is trying to expose, degrade, or ask who the person is. 

As for a way to submit anonymous feedback, the "unwritten" system we've had for years to dm an Admin is frankly ok in my mind. I may differ from others, but I don't think all anonymous feedback needs to be posted on the thread itself, especially if it comes across as accusatory with nothing to back it up or hostile that won't lead to anything productive. I'll refer back to what I said in my initial response: I used to get ***a lot** of anonymous feedback when I was TTT Admin and the way I handled those was I would post them in the admin channel to allow the people who vote on apps(Admins) to discuss it internally, because, ultimately, Admins are the ones that decide and should determine if the feedback has any foundation to it. If it was clearly biased or lacked substance I'd ask them privately to send me context or evidence for that before I consider posting it internally to see if anyone else has heard of it before or get a better idea of what they're talking about. I saw no need to post it on the app itself most of the time unless it was something that could formulate a productive discussion on the substance of the anonymous feedback or something the community should know about. AKA something that could actually be discussed to a meaningful extent. Again, there are ways to protect anonymity in public setting too. I already addressed harassment/backlash in my initial response a few pages back, so won't repost it

*snip*

1. Whether or not the feedback is warranted is up to the admin to decide, because none of us have the entire context of this discussion or even who sent that Brian.  Fear of being instantly dismissed as unfounded without the chance to provide evidence could easily have been the exact reason why this person submitted this anonymously.  But none of us can say for sure, however, I believe that since Bryan has infinitely more context than us and chose to include it shows that there is merit behind it.

2. edit: Even by just declaring it a "toxic closed-ended response" you have already passed judgement on the character of the person who posted it.  Hopefully you can see how when you speak in absolutes that denigrate the character of a person attempting to give their personal experience/feedback, you are most likely creating the exact situation that person wanted to avoid when they posted anonymously.

1. Yes, it is up to the Admin to decide if the feedback is warranted, I'll refer back to what I said above for how I don't think all feedback especially those that lack specific examples or context should be posted if it can't lead to a meaningful discussion or defense for the person who applied. Like I said, that kind of feedback can be kept internally among the Admins to discuss and consider, because they are the ultimate decision-makers.

2. I don't really agree with how you are characterizing Reina’s response there either. I think that type of anonymous feedback is difficult to have an open-ended discussion about in a public form setting, that type of feedback is more fitting for a private setting/internal among the Admins before being posted publicly with no real way to discuss it if neccessary. 

As I said in my first response a few pages back, the keyword is "feedback" not just saying this person does x, y, and z things or would most likely to do something based on x, y, and z. That's just accusing someone with no evidence or context attached to it. Which may not be the intent, but that's the way it presents itself. It's not "passing judgement on the character of the person who posted it" it's simply just pointing, in my mind, that it's being presented in a poorly structured way. Nothing about the person themselves. That creates an unfair discourse and no fair way to have a meaningful discussion about it or allow the applicant to properly defend themselves. Sure, they can ask an admin in private to elaborate, but the problem is that the feedback is still in public and unfairly paints that picture where it could've just been handled in private from the beginning. 

So I think the type of feedback posted publicly imo should have context or evidence along with it so everyone has a better understanding of where it's coming from, why it's being said, and not be seen as just a closed-minded type of feedback that doesn't provide a way to discuss it. It should be open-ended, not closed-ended. That means it should be discussable, allowing the person it's being directed to defend themselves, and allow a medium for people to assess that feedback or constructive critiques based off of that to add onto your +1 or -1.

mmm salad

1. I mostly agree with your points overall, but it's less about -rep and more about being treated poorly on the server and in the community in general, which isn't really something that can be reported or meaningfully acted upon by staff most of the time outside of extreme cases. 

I do agree that anonymous posts should be filtered to be constructive and made in good faith (really this should be all feedback posts, but 1984), but I don't see any legitimate reason why posts that pass that bar should face any further scrutiny or ridicule as far as anonymity goes, and restricting them would only serve to silence voices that might otherwise bring to light problematic behavior in the community*. I don't think the matter of anonymous posts in particular has been a huge issue recently or anything, but it's still just a bad precedent to set for the future.

*Speaking hypothetically, based on Reina's post before she had clarified further.

1. If people are being treated poorly on the server itself or in the community that is something we can handle. it's just a matter of it being reported to us if we can't observe it clearly. If it's reported to an Admin or appropriate staff privately we can handle that. As in for outside the community itself that's more tricky to deal with but if someone feels targeted or harassed by that person in general, it's still something worth reporting. I believe, or at least personally speaking I'd do my best to handle it or entertain the report.  I already said my piece about rep, so I'll skip that and agree that's a whole other discussion(cropped that part out in your response). 

2. Agreed, should be filtered, be in good faith, and be constructive. I think the issue is determining what that "bar" is. I already touched on that above in Ckg's part. No one is trying to ridicule or scrutinize the person themselves, just how the feedback is presented (circle back to what I said above regarding that so I don't repeat myself more since it's pretty much related haha)