Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
I'm not really saying that to criticize. I think what I'm trying to say is that rude is in the eye of the beholder, so the mods seem more likely to accept "rude or abusive" flags that are objectively awful rather than merely flippant. It's probably a good thing; I've had people take things I said the wrong way, too.
In my non-mod opinion/experience, "rude or abusive" is generally reserved for "You're an idiot," racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted language, profanity, etc. I was a little confused on this point myself early on. My flag of something along the lines of "Windows admins are idiots who click next for a living" as "rude or abusive" was declined, but my flags of overtly sexist comments and the random guy who came back for days to harangue me about solving his problem faster were not. I would suggest "not an answer" or "unconstructive" (if that still exists).
Unfortunately, the review queue is automated, and the audits appear to be generated based on community consensus. Sometimes one disagrees with the community, but there's not a lot to do about it. Unless you fail audits repeatedly no one does anything to you, anyway. In short, flunking a review audit once is pretty much meaningless. Don't worry about it.
Yes, but the review audit items aren't chosen by a human. They're random high-voted or low-voted posts stuck in the review queue to see if you're randomly mashing buttons for a badge. I don't imagine Stack Exchange is going to hire people to select review audits, so....
Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear, @Anubioz. It's not reviewing that's a waste of time, it's the audits. Whatever code generates them is sometimes wrong, and... what Reaces said, really.
