As I read it, the argument is not that creators post in public to attract feedback, or that they will always welcome it when it is given, but that public criticism is beneficial to the average quality of work in furry fandom, and to visitors' experience on a site, regardless of the creator's wishes.
Earlier, Rakuen noted three potential benefits of such criticism:
If no one reads the review it isn't helpful to anyone because it doesn't give readers a chance to learn about a submission, it doesn't give the author help to improve and, if done privately, it deprives other writers the chance to learn from someone else's mistakes.
Only one of these points is talking about a potential benefit to the creator.
Perhaps now you can understand why a person may comprehend the wishes of a creator, yet still not respect them. If they see it as their duty to improve the quality of work by any means necessary, they may encourage a creator to only post their best work in fear of negative criticism, or they may act to decrease the chance that bad work is posted, through moderation or other means — especially if it's clearly deficient and not improved in response to critique.
To take the metaphor to the extreme: if your shirt looks and smells like shit, you shouldn't be allowed to wear it to the con and make us look bad or spoil the experience of other members who have to deal with it. Even if it turns out that we can't throw you out, you can still be an object lesson to others in what not to do.
Of course, this approach has the sole goal of increasing the quality of art and stories in the fandom/on a particular site. This may not be beneficial, overall, to the fandom. It may also not be the best way to achieve this goal. For example, a "popular" front-page filter may filter out the worst work, reducing its impact on a visitor's view of the site's quality.
As I read it, the argument is not that creators post in public to attract feedback, or that they will always welcome it when it is given, but that public criticism is beneficial to the average quality of work in furry fandom, and to visitors' experience on a site, regardless of the creator's wishes.
Earlier, Rakuen noted three potential benefits of such criticism:
Only one of these points is talking about a potential benefit to the creator.
Perhaps now you can understand why a person may comprehend the wishes of a creator, yet still not respect them. If they see it as their duty to improve the quality of work by any means necessary, they may encourage a creator to only post their best work in fear of negative criticism, or they may act to decrease the chance that bad work is posted, through moderation or other means — especially if it's clearly deficient and not improved in response to critique.
To take the metaphor to the extreme: if your shirt looks and smells like shit, you shouldn't be allowed to wear it to the con and make us look bad or spoil the experience of other members who have to deal with it. Even if it turns out that we can't throw you out, you can still be an object lesson to others in what not to do.
Of course, this approach has the sole goal of increasing the quality of art and stories in the fandom/on a particular site. This may not be beneficial, overall, to the fandom. It may also not be the best way to achieve this goal. For example, a "popular" front-page filter may filter out the worst work, reducing its impact on a visitor's view of the site's quality.