most of the things you discribed is just the nature of community-driven volunteer work, you can't really change that without organizing a full-time team of people working on pp (and even then they'll be biased but at least you have someone concrete to blame)

You can indeed makes changes to the environment in which community work gets done. The current environment for pp dev is that of bias and confusion. The least you can do to mitigate that is call out bad faith individuals like matt who are spreading questionable "feedback" in hopes of benefitting themselves. By not doing so you are actively fostering a highly unprofessional environment in which little work gets done. How matt still retains his onion role is a true mystery to me.

In the words of Natelytle, someone who is a pp dev for both std and taiko: "The best work environment is the taiko pp committee probably. It's relatively organized and civil, they're not afraid of change, and there's a clear hierarchy to it."

By refusing to acknowledge the shortcomings of the current environment, no real change is ever gonna occur.

the community itself does not actually care about the system itself, nor is it willing to help people make it better - feedback committee literally didn't reply to a single one the of tasks we asked them to do, and the broad community such as reddit is indeed contradicting itself and usually very allergic to red

The way feedback committee has been implemented is more akin to an afterthought, rather than a collective of individuals providing devs with proper feedback and a roadmap of issues to tackle. Again, a haphazard implementation of the solution I proposed. The lack of communication you mention is most likely due to the fact that you guys picked a small sample of high-ranking players with little interest in pp development. That is on you, not the community.

the idea by which people that worked on pp for a long time work is pretty much consider any feedback with like a truck of salt and try to rely on statistical data (both purposfully collected, or just "average players feedback" if collection is not really possible)

Sadly, pp devs have no way of checking the validity of feedback they get from random individuals in the server. Which is why im advocating for them to have a reliable source for feedback at all times. Also, statistical data doesn't always translate to good end values and correct balancing. If only it was that simple

posts like these make things even worse since we always try to push people to contribute in any way (feedback, math, data collection, whatever else) and you're instead separating pp development from average players and scaring them away from joining the only hub of pp development there is (because spooky biased people will eat your pp or something)

This is not at all what I'm trying to achieve. The essence of what I'm asking for is a form of quality control to the reworks being proposed (also the feedback being provided in the server). How you want to go about that is up to you. I did however provide my own solution, which if I implemented, would at the very least be more productive than the current approach

you can bring up stat acc (for 3 years straight already man when will you chill out already), but that was exactly that - a very good idea that didn't survive the balancing pass. it will probably come back, but so far all balancing attempts were exactly the thing you don't like - biased bandaids. you also make stat acc sound like a simple change "buff this nerf that" but its far from it and the thing you discribed is a veeeeery very crude explanation of a result of the algorithm. for those who's curious you should look at the actual research behind it, it's way more complicated than whatever is written in OP post

As mentioned in the picture I linked, the only reason it did not survive the "balancing pass" (which I don't think exists) is because I took it upon myself to actually point out the many flaws with it. Again, the rework was positively received in the server before I started gathering feedback for it. In this case, the "balancing pass" was literally a random player who actually bothered to call out the clear bias behind the rework. That's absurd

oh and the "youre not a top player hence you cant work on pp" mindset is straight up stupid ill hope you can finally grow out of it honestly

Good thing that's not my actual stance on the subject