[reinaberg]

I don't think they are, and broad generalizations like that that serve no function than to belittle the argument/feelings of another are exactly what I was talking about.  I've responded to specific points you've made and your statement has been proven false by that.

i apologize if my words came off as belittling, as that was not my intent. i said that i felt as though my words were falling on deaf ears because my point seemed to have been overlooked with the response of "I just took issue with the idea that everyone who posts criticism anonymously..." since my point did not apply to everyone who posts criticism anonymously.
it is very difficult to give a response here when my words are being examined to this degree though, so personal concerns like this would most likely receive a more thoughtful response from me if brought up in dm's.

The main difference between my point and yours is that I don't think it's vague and unconstructive.  Look at the rest of the -1's, they echo very similar points. I also do not think that it is vague. It lists specific issues that they have, so it seems that by "vague" you are instead asking for hard proof/evidence instead of the complaints themselves being vague.

"Someone that still can't think for himself, parades off his friends and disregards others opinions as troll behavior should not be given karma manipulation access whatsoever." is rather vague and unconstructive in my opinion, especially when the person who wrote the response has put themselves in a position where they cannot be asked for clarification. describing how they have interpreted his behavior without describing the behavior makes it difficult for the thread to maintain a meaningful discussion.
(edit to add to this, since salty responded to this post with his own clarification regarding his reasoning behind previously wishing to remain anonymous, i think it may be good to note that it he says it was done to avoid having his name affect the perceived validity of his point.)

in the end, my main goal is not to convince you to feel the same way about the post as i do. i'm mainly trying to convey my opinion that responses posted publicly using a staff member as a proxy should provide enough information, without compromising the author's anonymity, to allow others to form an opinion and have a meaningful discussion around it as well since the point of feedback is to help others assess the applicant or help the applicant themselves improve.