Remove self anonymity

The only players that use self anonymous mode are cheaters, griefers and/or players that don't want to ruin their reputation.

100% wrong. I use it and I am neither of those things. I am just a person who doesn't want other players looking up my hour count and dodging the lobby or having salty players post a bunch of bs on my steam page. I'm sure it is also a great tool for streamers who have people trying to troll/harass them. There are many legit reasons to play in anonymous mode.

It is a feature that promotes the negativity of the community and
doesn't allow other device users to report the accounts on those other
devices.

You can still report players in anonymous mode. Make the report and then when you submit your ticket on BHVR's main site, just say it was the "anonymous named player" who was doing the cheating/toxic/exploits.

I put it on because of griefing. Had a trapper focus on only me and bm me four matches in a row because I looped tf outta him the first time. Also had survivors body block and lure the killer to me because I didn’t body block for them in previous matches. Also had people snipe my profile for ammo to use against me. I also don’t want to be on a YouTube video or stream where toxicity is prevalent.

And people who are sick and tired of people abusing Anon Mode to break the game rules and banking on the fact that the majority of the playerbase doesn't understand the report system. I can't tell you how many jerks play Anon, both as my soloq teammates, and Killers, (and presumably some of my Survivors as Killer, but I can't tell if they griefed their own team). They all too often engage in flagrant rule breaking, and Anon mode empowers their belief that they are safe. At the same time, because I've seen people on the forums all too often not understanding how the report system works, means the vast majority of people don't report people properly, thus Anon WORKS as a shield for bad actors, mostly due to ignorance and poor implementation.

Also you can private your steam profile so random people can't comment, or only friends can comment on your profile. Why wouldn't someone do that? My steam profile isn't a forum for public discussion, it is more akin to my house, and only people I invite are allowed there. You can have reviews, and steam group/game posts publicly visible and available to comment, but there is no reason to have your profile open for comment. As far as consoles, you can get people banned for DMing insults as tame as 'you are 2% stinkier than the average person' since their rules for bans/reporting are so lax, so just report them there.

Showing username after the match is over is normal for this sort of feature, as you don't need to worry about streamsniping/anonymity after the match is done. The purpose is already reached by blocking mid-match. The welcome is overstayed when you can clearly see people not understanding the report system because the system is so obfuscated only AFTER the advent of Anon mode.

This is a square/rectangle problem (although with most instead of all). All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Most griefers/cheaters use Anon mode, but not all Anon mode users are cheaters/griefers.

People act out more under Anon mode, and there are already protections in place for console/steam unwanted messages. (Steam can disable messages from non-friends, private profile comments to only allow for friends, etc. Console has far less requirements for ban reports on messaging.)

Should anyone have to take extra effort to prevent griefers or harassing messages? No, but sadly this is the internet, with both its highs and lows. Some actions should be done to ensure more harm isn't done than good, and currently IME, Anon does more harm than good, especially when the benefits of Anon are already solved through other (and far better) means. I haven't had any messages prevented by using Anon (that weren't prevented by disabling messages from people off my friends list), but I have had griefers actively ruining multiple matches because they feel empowered to do so with Anon mode. That means I now have to record matches and provide video evidence and hop through all the hoops of the report system from a problem caused by a solution for an already solved problem.

1. Not all cheaters use anonymous mode, so comparison to squares have no sense.

1a. Especially that in oppening post it is said: "The only players that use self anonymous mode are cheaters, griefers"

2. It's better to give people ability to prevent being harassed since one can report cheaters regardless of anonymous.

3. You really prefer to let people being harassed by toxic dbd player to achieve slightly more reports for bad behavior?

Sadly yes it does matter if they 'feel safe', because it doesn't stop the problem at the source, and causes more people to act out.
If these people will act out because of this 'feature' that 'solves' something already solved, then the feature is to blame while not providing value.

You shouldn't lock down steam comments because of any one game, you should lock down steam comments because they provide nothing of value unless farming '-1's. Anyone can simply add you as a friend and communicate if you think they aren't a troll, y'know basic internet safety precautions.

Revealing someone post-game prevents the exact problem this version provides, it prevents people from feeling empowered to BM without being called out, or facing other repercussions. A weirdo sending people your way can happen in any other game, so why is this the only one where this matters? Plus with the basic internet safety features I mentioned earlier, this is already solved. If this community is so depraved and vile, I'd say that says volumes about the type of environment the game fosters. Even then, it would be much better served by removing Anon mode, as all those depraved and vile people are needlessly BMing in matches behind their Anonymity.

Reporting has actually decreased in quality when they started using that stupid AI bot instead of the easy to use forms. It took me 3 times longer to tell the bot the info (in the obtuse ways it was asking) than to type it in manually with * for required sections. (Essentially I have to go through ALL the optional parts, even when they aren't needed with the bot.)

1. I have to assume you are ESL, or some other major cultural difference, if it didn't make sense, so I'll re-explain in detail. The Square Rectangle comparison is when people are comparing two different concepts, where there is some overlap. A Square is a 4 sided object, with all 4 sides being equal in length. A Rectangle is a 4 sided object, with 2 pairs of sides equal in length. That means a Square has to be 1/1/1/1, or 5/5/5/5, or X/X/X/X, and 5/5/4/4 isn't a Square. A Rectangle can have both sets be the same size like the 1s or the 5s (1/1/1/1), but it also could be 1/1/5/5, or 3/3/4/4, or any other X/X/Y/Y. That means sometimes a Rectangle can be a Square (when X = Y), but not all Rectangles are squares (when X != Y). I also qualified my statement with 'most', so it was softened from the full comparison.

1a. That wasn't what I claimed, I only claimed most of my cheater/griefer experiences were from Anon users (or of the bad people, most bad people use Anon). Take issue with the other posters for that claim. I can understand them being frustrated and hyperbolic though.

2. Like I said previously, already solved by better tools, and this empowers griefers/cheaters to act out under a sense of security, more than people would act out normally (from my anecdotal experience from before and after Anon was implemented).

3. Removing a grief tool doesn't remove all other protections in place, so this is a false dichotomy. As I detailed in numerous places, people can private their profiles, prevent public comments, only accept messages from people on their friend list, and more. None of those security features vanish when the Anon grief tool is removed. Plus it is such a bizarre claim, if the community is so horrible, why wouldn't this cause for more harm than good? Clearly if 97% of the people are nothing but trolling harassers, then they would abuse this tool for ill. If they were so rare (say 3%) then the tool wouldn't be needed to begin with. Both extremes point towards Anon (without revealing in post-game) being a 'bad idea'/'griefer's dream tool'.

So much misinformation about the reporting system still around. I wish they'd put out a comprehensive updated guide for when players need to use it.

So you reply without using the Quote feature which pings people, or actually spelling my name correctly (to ping me) when it auto-suggests to spell it correctly with people. Now technically there are some spelling and grammar mistakes, so that could possibly be it, but quoting bypasses the need to @ someone. That means while it is possible, at this point I don't find it plausible. I previously was extending a courtesy of assuming best intentions, but now it seems more likely you are lying and arguing in bad faith. This appears to be an attempt to get the last word without a reply, especially since you previously used the quote feature which shows you know how to use it. Like, its easier to click the quote button than to type @(person's name), especially when going out of the way to not click the auto-suggestion for the person's name.

My arguments are bad, I use feelings rather than logic - My points of argument: 1. Better tools exist and provide universal protections. Not seeing emotion. Also not seeing these being refuted, so it seems the merit of these tools I suggested stands, thus a good argument. 2. A greater percentage of bad actors use Anon in comparison to the normal population (due to how it is implemented), and gave suggestions to 'improve usage'/'reduce misuse'. Giving suggestions for improvement seems like a willingness to engage, thus more likely logical than emotional. Alternatively, my experience was anecdotal, so I checked over 8 videos I had for reports (I wanted an even 10, but some vids ended before finding out if the offending Killer was Anon, and some of those were before Anon was implemented so I had to exclude those from the criteria). Excluding myself or my SWF, 3/4 Anon players in the 8 games were the rule breaker (griefs or cheats or other), and 5/27 non-Anon players were the rule breaker. Anon has 75% jerks, and non-Anon has 18.5% jerks (if you include my SWF and I, that drops non-Anon to 5/36 or ~13.9%, but I wanted to use numbers most favorable to the point I'm arguing against). That means Anon contains 56% more jerks, or Anon players are roughly 4 times as likely to break the rules as normal players. So this isn't an emotional argument unless the numbers were within, say, 10% of one another. Since this is mathematical, and not strictly memory and negativity bias, this is a logical point, not an emotional one. Neither of my core arguments are rooted in emotion (the other things are mostly spinoffs of these 2 core pillars), so unless you could show how they were emotional instead of logical, that leans once more towards the bad faith camp.

Victims shouldn't be forced to switch off their social life - Where did I say fully disable everything as the only solution? I gave a range of solutions from the extreme, private everything, to the tame, only accept direct/private messages from friends. Even with everything privated, you can still communicate with everyone in post-game chat, forums, steam discussions, and DM/PMs with friends. All of those work perfectly fine, even under the 'private everything' suggestion. Heck, you could go to the actual extreme and make your account name a bar code ala Battlenet (Combination of capital 'i's and lowercase 'L's, like IlIlIlIIIllllIIIllIlI, or whatever works for the platform). I have to understand the risk of getting in an accident when driving or riding in a vehicle, so I can take simple precautions like wearing a seatbelt. I have to understand the risk while walking to look both ways before crossing the street, even when I have the right of way. I have to understand the risk of unsavory messages when I go online, and can use basic universal protections to avoid the majority of them.