Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-5079138-20170807134618

Before you complain about stuff yet, please read carefully the entire thing written below. I'm gonna make this long and detailed because I'm sick of people opposing the moment they wanna defend something so defective as this "evaluation" abomination, which is usually caused by not reading the whole thing and as a result, getting the wrong conclusion, or the thread isn't detailed enough to convey the reasons behind the change.

While the staff evaluation forms haven't reached 3 months of use yet, I think this thing should be ditched ASAP before it does any damage/drama.

Or, the least we can do is to take out the deliberation period to suppress and minimize the possibilities of drama. I have a strong feeling that this thing will cause more trouble than benefits. Let me explain clearly why it will.

1. It's broken by design
Why the hell should staff members who DON'T have any reviews yet get deliberated as well? What if people at some point didn't realize that we have an evaluation form set up and a lot of staff are suddenly in the edge of deliberation? Do you even think such ideas are reasonably fine? It's NOT. Not at all.

We can at least remove the deliberation period while keeping the forms intact for this, and use the forms to see how people react. That's much better and more sensical than randomly deliberating people when they don't have any reviews. Also, sometimes people won't change their views/ratings on staff members that have been improved over the course of a few weeks or months, so if the staff was voted "good" or "bad" by someone, and then he/she improves (if the review given was bad) or being absent the whole time (if it was good) after that, and no one else does a review for him/her, the staff will effectively be safe from deliberation or in danger of it.

Not to mention that by only leaving a critique in the last few days prior to deliberation period to a staff member that haven't got any reviews yet or have a low amount of reviews, you could actually do a review bias by adding high points (to save them) or low points (to make them on the edge of deliberation) and if you do it good enough, people may not think that you're trying to do a review bias because they probably won't notice it. How awesome are those!

2. Not much people have actually left any reviews.
During two months after the evaluation forms was launched, not much people have reviewed the staff members.

At the time this was written:

On average, there are only 1.433 reviews submitted on every staff members, when broken down, on average, there's only 1 review left for each rollbacks, 1.67 for chat mods, 1.75 for discussion mods, 1.5 for content mods, 0.86 for admins, and 2 for crats. Those aren't even close to being "many" in terms of quantity.

Worse, there are 2 unevaluated rollbacks, 2 chat mods, 1 discussion mod, 1 content mod (out of 2!), and 3 admins. That sums up for 9 overall unevaluated staff members! Now, this stats were pulled 18 days prior to deliberation period, which indicates that there's just not enough people interested in evaluating the staff members.

And, to make things even worse, most of the time, the people who review them are staff members. There's hardly enough regular users who reviewed them. While they might be very active on the mainspace or the forum, they barely participate in this evaluation program. The only regular users who left a review on the forms are Redfork2000, Camwood777, Zombiecrab, and PeaVZ108, and they only left reviews on one or two people.

3. It is more prone to "giving low scores on people you hate" and "giving high scores on people you like" than regular demotion threads.
Compared to the conventional "demote after inactivity/huge controversy" votes, which can only be done well if you put plausible enough reasons to support that staff member's demotion (people's gonna oppose if they aren't convincing), closes down after 3 days (which means much less chance to be abused) and should only be done once every few weeks/months when the vote's opposed, evaluation forms allow for people to express their "love" or "hate" to staff members without worrying about the reasons being not very convincing since people can freely leave a review to them at any time with almost no problems to worry about (except for immune staff/deliberation periods). It's also prone to loopholes (read below)

Someone that's more mainspace-addicted and wanted to downvote someone for defensive or hateful reasons could just create sockpuppet(s), edit the mainspace as well as give some bit of "activity" for that sockpuppet, then give low/high scores when they meet the minimum criteria to vote with each accounts. This can happen at random times so that the plot isn't noticeable, which is bad for the wiki and the staff members themselves.

This is actually possible as some people on certain forums sometimes do this and pretend to be a "real" user and then spam stuff when the time comes. Also, for those who still remember the TPP incident in 2015. He actually plotted the whole thing and spammed with sockpuppets and pretended to be a legit user when he was banned (using a "temporary" account) and also after he was unbanned until he became a staff member in which he violated several rules again. Similar thing could happen on this one too if the user spends enough time to plot the entire thing to make multiple negative/positive reviews for users with different sockpuppets.

To make things even worse, you only need to be a member of the wiki for 4 weeks. Yes, you heard it right. 4 weeks, no additional mainspace requirements, no extra activity requirements, nada.

4. The addition of deliberation period is redundant.
Look, we already have a demotion rule if you do things badly enough or if you're inactive enough, but the evaluation takes it up to eleven. What's the point of using deliberation if the demotion rules already cover them? This is literally redundant and there's no need in having redundancies in demotion rules.

Now that I've explained the whole thing, you can clearly see that the staff evaluation forms/deliberation periods are just severely defective. What can you do now? Vote. It's not too late yet to make a difference. Either vote for removing the entire evaluation forms as well as the deliberation period, or just take out the deliberation period while keeping the evaluation forms intact for those who are interested with it. And no. I'm not gonna put any tl;dr's just in case you get the wrong conclusions by that.

It's up to you now.

 