Why is this post not rude or abusive (as evidenced by declined flag)?

Question

I'm trying to make a sense of a declined "rude or abusive" flag.

The flag was declined with a canned "declined - a moderator reviewed your flag, but found no evidence to support it" message without a custom explanation.

The post had double-dose of rudeness:

• "Obama, and he doesn't seem like an asshat (unlike the current president),"

  violated the "Be Nice" rule, as elaborated in Shog9's answer to "https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/286090/119280"

• "So why da fuck did he win the nobel peace prize?"

  is just plain out rude, seemingly uncontrovercially.

I'm trying to understand why the moderator declined the flag - was there something wrong about my judgement about its content? Or merely the timing of flag handling since by the time the question was edited by someone trying to improve it?

Answer 1

When I reviewed the flag on this (now deleted) question, it read:

I don't dislike Obama, but I don't think he's a particularly noble person either, somebody who has achieved great things in an attempt to further human civilization and promote peace.

Why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize?

I did not find anything rude or offensive about the question. Another user already fixed any objectionable phrases. There was nothing for me to do here, so I rejected the flag as baseless.

As long as a user is not either personally insulting other members of the stackexchange community or repeatedly and consistently misbehaving (as that might warrant a suspension), it is usually preferable to fix objectionable language yourself instead of asking a moderator to do it for you. That's why Stackexchange allows users to edit other user's questions and answers.