Very often, if a staff member is underperforming (or not even performing at all), it takes a very long time before anything is done about it. Sometimes, this can have a very bad effect on entire staff usergroups. I've talked with a few people and I know I'm not the only staff member concerned about this sort of thing.

There's no-one holding these inactive/shit staff members to account. The broader community can't, since often they're unaware/don't have access to the necessary information. The staff has this information.

I propose that every so often, perhaps every two months, each staff member briefly rates their team-members and supervisor/s and identifies the inactive/shit staffers. This is called peer evaluation. It's done in many businesses, government departments and militaries to identify the strong and weak links in teams.

An example peer evaluation format (I'm not tied to it, if someone comes up with something better, use it):
Staffer A - Activity 5/5 - Competency 4/5
Staffer B - Activity 3/5 - Competency 5/5
Staffer C - Activity 1/5 - Competency 2/5
Staffer D - Activity 3/5 - Competency 3/5
Staffer E - Activity 4/5 - Competency 4/5
Supervisor A - Activity 5/5 - Competency 5/5

Additional notes - Staffer C has done literally nothing the past 2 months, he needs to be fired/replaced. Supervisor A is absolutely fantastic, he should be showered with accolades.
---
This doesn't need to be an extensive survey. I appreciate that staff members would not be keen on, every two months, filling in some crazy detailed report - Something that takes only a few minutes would be appropriate. The only thing that needs to happen with this is that the inactive/shit staffers get identified and removed from staff. The other benefit of running the peer evaluations is star staff members also get identified.

I've included a poll in this suggestion to gauge community support. The will of the community is important, so if the community support this issue, it'll have a higher chance of being implemented.
---

To make clear, staff would only be rating other staff in their usergroup and their supervisors. They would not be asked to rate every staff member.

but this already happens...

It doesn't - I think you're out of touch. As someone currently involved with staff, I know (as do others) that people don't get fired unless a huge fuss is made. I could list a whole bunch of examples, but I don't want to shame anyone.

tbh i don't think peer reviews would be a bad idea, druggedpanda was talking about how the MS is kinda fucked, if there were peer reviews when that was going on, i think it could have been solved and fixed.
ES members have to be active, cuz we're the most community oriented staff group, being that we host all those great events and all that jazz, and if a member or two are slacking, i think peer reviews would help keep them in check
cuz then it would bring attention to the ES leads, as well as the other ES members.

i dont think it should be an obligation, but if you noticed a staff member not paying enough time to their job, i think that a peer review would be a good option at the least.

any input on what i said?

Edit: Mercurit brought my attention to this thread: http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=456170
It's pretty spot on with peer reviews, if there are things that this thread is missing that we would like to add in, i don't see that as being a bad idea

@Gynx: I'd argue that it's not that staff aren't comfortable making complaints, but that our complaints are often fruitless. As for the necessity of the peer evaluations, it's been a consistent issue, so there's obviously room for improvement and unlike you, I don't trust the admins to stay on top of this stuff (as they evidently haven't been).

On your point about my poll - This change doesn't just affect current staff. It affects the whole community. It means less inactive/shit staffers. If you don't think the shittiness/inactiveness of staff affects the community, then I don't know what to tell you. Take into consideration and let the community vote on whether they want shit/inactive staffers or not.

@Kozmo: The difference between the thread you linked and this idea is that thread involved getting the community to rate the staff. My suggestion is just about having staff review each other.

Is there a limited staff positions?
I don't see it that having a few more members there that slack from time to time as an inconvenient, as long as they do shit from time to time. The more trustworthy people there are the better imo.
Kicking should be in case of death or toxic behaviour, power abuse or stucf like that. If things are not good hire one or two more. If people go afk for long periods and it is a recurring think then kick em. Afterall this is a volunteer work.

The local moderators for this board were literally never active at all. None. I knew at least one of them was mildly active, but never showed up. If I'm going to be doing my job alone, I'd like to have the board show this, rather than making it seemed much more staffed than it is.

Imagine you have a job, let's say, as an in-person customer service representative. You have peers, who have the same duties as you, just different shifts or windows. And you have a manager, your supervisor. Think about how peer reviews would effect the environment as opposed to standard evaluations from supervisor and occasional reviews from clients.

I never understood why people want to hate each other so much. We are a community, and staff are supposed to be it's best members. Yet, there is already so much hatred within staff that peer reviews can only bring it to the next level. We should all be friends, respect each other, help each other if any issues arise.

Leave reviews to usergroup leaders, they probably know more than your peers how usergroup should work, and what is considered healthy workflow. Even if they stick to a conservative policy of dealing with inactive or otherwise underperforming group members, that is fine. Most staff members are chosen carefully, and everyone has their ups and downs, so there are only a few cases that require immediate actions, which are obvious without peer reviews. As part of the usergroup, you need to support your peers by offering them help, cheer them up, and be respectful to their irl issues. Instead, some people running to higher-ups with their tongues out saying this guy did this that guys did that and the third guy disappeared. And peer reviews essentially encourage the latter behaviour.

@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.

Isn't there a list that admins can view which shows edits done by the staff on the forum such as closing threads, adding forum boards, sections, profile changes, editing posts etc?

Perhaps admins can look at this list and see who is doing what and who is doing nothing at all?

Also I do support periodic evaluations.