Hello there! Thank you for response to my post and your time. But I was somewhat surprised by the part of the answer concerning the reasons for the intention of the site user to report the offense and the subsequent decision of the persons authorized to do so. That is, we are talking about establishing a line between the fact and circumstances of the insult and the opinion of the responsible decision maker. In legal practice, there is a definition and signs of insult. Linguistic examination of public and private statements and messages allows us to establish the fact of a humiliating assessment in an indecent form, namely: 1) unreasonable nit-picking; 2) rude statements about appearance; 3) obscene jokes; 4) interference with privacy and confidential data; 5) humiliation of national dignity; 6) obscene language, as well as comparison with an animal, diagnosis that are only within the competence of doctors, accusatory fabrications of a slanderous nature. The presence of direct intent and the fact of awareness of actions complete the overall picture. According to the Law, nothing can be grounds for belittling the dignity of a person. Insult may intersect with slander, but insult is not slander, just as slander is not an insult. They have their own compositions. As for the feelings of an offended person (negative emotions, indignation, damage to health), this is a category of moral harm, the consequences of an insult. In the site's format, this could be an apology; cash equivalent - by court order. The sequence of actions in establishing the fact of insult and its consequences allows making unbiased, fair decisions that do not raise doubts about their objectivity and competence. Of course, we would like the reasons for appeals, messages, complaints and claims to be reduced to a minimum. But they are. Unfortunately. Thanks again for the timely response. You can not answer my post, because it is aimed only at clarifying the legal position when contacting the site employees. Sincerely, _Neva_