Mods are alwats busy, usually going through many l flags thing that are just normal, but meanwhile you've spooted some horrible link to a BAD site. So i suggest a 1-5 scale of flagging so they can respond to more serious flags quicker.

here's a scale (just for an example)

1-cursing and double posting
2-flagging
3- spam and mini-city links
4-stealing (images and credit)
5-excuse my frenchpornogrophy

thats my suggestion.

or what they could do is when we click on a flag... a drop down list appears (which will be the things you've provided plus some more if possible) we then click on the reason and the mods will check it.....saves mods time trying to figure out why we flagged

dank, as moderator, is there a thing that shows flagged comments? or are you supposed to find them yourselves?

well if this makes you happy, your comment has just been flagged! Learn to zip it and post nicely!

Drum, there is no reason to be rude or to flame another member. Don't let me catch you doing it again. Especially in the topic about flagging. What were YOU thinking?

opps a mistake

2 is supposed to be "flamming" not "flagging"

umm what is 3dd talking about, and exactly who?

Well, above him was idrumtoomuch's post.

I wasn't flaming.  I was simply stating the truth.

I do agree with being able to specify what infraction a review breaks, but I think the numbering system is quite unnecessary.  At that point, each users specific judgment of severity must be called into question, which means more trouble than the system would fix.  Thus we'd have to deal with flagging suspensions and whatnot, something this site doesn't necessarily need.  The admin back-end here isn't as stable as it should be anyway, but that was last time I checked with Dan.

i think it is a great idea to have severity between flags, but people could potentially abuse this. For example say you really disagree with what some one says, you could just flag it a 5, then the admins would have to go through comments that are flagged as a 5 but really shouldn't be