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
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?
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
