@Shev
The job isn't being done properly by the supervisors - That's the whole problem here. Additionally, what happens when it's the supervisor that's inactive? You know how hard it is getting shit done with an inactive supervisor? As a MS, you should know about that more than anybody. There's a reason the usergroup is now a shell of its former self.

If you think this whole thing is being pushed for because people just 'want to hate each other', then you're missing the point of this entirely. It's about making sure everyone's doing their part. If people aren't doing their part, they don't deserve to be in the position of power that they're in. This isn't anything crazy. If you don't show up to your workplace for a month without giving a reason you would be fired. In Toribash people can do no shit for months and months and still retain their position (doubly more likely when the staffer is friends with uppers).

To reiterate, it's not about 'hating' your work peers. It's about holding them to the most basic of standards. If you and I worked in a bakery and you never showed up to help me bake, or you contaminated the dough with semen, you would be fired. It wouldn't be because 'I hate you', it would be because you were an inactive/shit baker.
-----
To be even more clear, staff providing reasons for their inactivity beforehand is absolutely acceptable. These peer evaluations aren't aiming to 'catch' those people.