Two suggestions, put into spoiler tags for simplicity. A PC Software Help forum [spoiler] This one is simple. Head over to the PC forum, and the place is full of people asking 'help my new game won't work' and the like. We have a 'Put 'Can I run it requests here' thread' but that does not extend to that. Its not a hard request (we already have a PC Hardware forum) and that would clear the spam in the PC gaming forum, and make it a forum for discussion about PC gaming, not about 'help me, my game won't work.' [/spoiler]

Now, that may seem like a short one, but the second one deals with an overhaul of moderation on GS. Why? Its pretty simple. GS's moderation system (considering its such a big forum) is flawed. There are only a few mods per forum, and cases have happened in the past where a loosely-affiliated group of people (read: the /b/tards) unite and spam our forums, hoping that the mods are asleep.

In brief, I am saying that there should be five levels of regular (non-staff) users, instead of two ('users' and mods.) The levels, and my justification for them, are below.

NOTE: By 'new levels' I don't mean the level system in place already (ie: Level 1: Player,) instead, the different levels of mods.

---

Level 1: New users [spoiler] Very-recently joined users. They have no powers, they cannot report users, create a thread (they can reply), post videos, and cannot use the (suggested) vote-lock\unlock and the 'call mod' feature (these will be explained in detail later on.) These users are the new users-people who have not been around for over a week (after making their first forum post.) The reason users must go through this stage is simple-to prevent people spamming accounts for a short-term vote-lock spam. People are no longer at this level after a week. [/spoiler]

Level 2: Regular Users [spoiler] The meat and potatoes of the Gamespot community. With this suggested system in place, these users are the 'regulars.' They have no special abilities, like approving a vote-lock or unlock, but they can post videos, new threads, and vote in a vote-lock or unlock. This is pretty much where every non-mod Gamespot user is now. They become a Junior Mod (jmod) at the approval of a regular mod. [/spoiler]

Level 3: Junior Mod (jmod) [spoiler] Junior mods are the regulars. The people who are always on the forums, not quite trustworthy enough to be a fully-fledged mod, but they wear jmod tags, and, as well as other powers, they can approve a lock (explained later,) an unlock, delete disruptive posts. Before locking a thread, jmods must have had it 'recommended' to them by a vote of 20 users. In an ideal system, there should be about 20-50 jmods per board, and they should all be in different time zones. To become a regular mod, jmods must be recommended by a staff member [/spoiler]

Level 4: Regular Mod [spoiler] They pretty much have the same powers that they have had before, not much more, none less (except they can promote a regular user to a jmod) [/spoiler]

Explanation of the vote-lock and unlock features, and why we need jmods The vote-lock and unlock are so that the users can have control. We all complain of mod abuse, and the like, but we have nothing to do to fix it. In short, this returns limited power to the users, through the users being able to vote a thread as offensive or disruptive, and then, that thread (after receiving a set number of votes) would be sent to a jmod that is online at the time. They would then be able to approve the lock. The jmods cannot lock threads without a vote. However, they can delete posts. The unlock feature basically works in reverse, but an unlock should need more votes then a lock. Why not just use the 'report abuse' feature? Simple, mods are human, and they are not always online. As you can see with the pic posted at the top, when no mods are online, chaos happens. Thanks, feel free to comment.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="Caddy06_88"]

jMod idea wouldn't really work too well in my opinion. We urge people to report any abuse they see simply because like I said, if everybody reports something, we see it MUCH faster.

[/QUOTE]

Exactly. If something had to get "voted" 20 times anyway, that would bring a report to the very tippy-top of our queue, and it wouldn't matter at all if there is any regular mod to that forum online. The proposed system is not much different than what we have now, it just has potential to be abused a lot more.

We don't need forum mods because we have the report feature. You need to use it if you want it to work, though ;)

[/QUOTE] Sorry, well I guess that eliminates part of my suggestion. I thought that the amount of times reported=\=move-up on line.