Looks to me as though they're trying to get rid of the sub. In the past, they have made a decision on removing mods of subs and putting new ones in without too much user interaction, and they have never directly asked if a sub should be left to rot before.
The fact that the conversation can not be had without it being anon says a lot about the decline of Voat's community.
They're doing the right thing by making it anon. My point is the fact that it has to be anon in the first place really brings to light some of the toxicity in the userbase now.
In the case of Voat, it couldn't really be helped. Have a Reddit clone based on the concept of free speech right around the time Reddit bans all their hate subs, and you're fucked. In my opinion, it is a lot healthier for the site if growth is managed to climb at a slow rate. That gives everyone a chance to acclimatise to the site and stops one group of users from taking the whole thing over.
How you plan on doing that is another matter entirely.
They are trying to get people's honest opinion while protecting users from witchhunting based on that opinion, why is that bad?