The community is being diluted by low quality posts and what looks like deliberate misinformation. I posted a suggestion to help people critique posts that was removed under rule 12. I suggest that we have a pinned post or something similar to advise people.

OP

We need to be sceptical

The recent New Jersey “Drone” sightings have created an incredible amount of noise and misinformation in the community – some of which is deliberate.

This, coupled with some lazy news media that can’t even be bothered to check sighting against flight trackers or seem unable to identify commercial aircraft, is contaminating the whole subject. It is a godsend for those that want to discredit the Nimitz incident and shut down the current Senate and Congressional investigations.

Please challenge any post that does not provide location, date and time. This information allows a quick check of the veracity of the posts.

Other quick checks

1.    Click on any images and do an image search (right click in Edge or Chrome).

2.    Ask the poster if they checked against a flight tracking and astronomy apps.

3.   Check the posters history.

For anyone in doubt, please watch the Corridor crew videos on YouTube. They know their CGI and are good at debunking. Unfortunately, they also get clicks by deliberately posting fake UAP videos.

It’s also a good idea to search Metabunk – there are the usual suspects there, but they do provide good information as well.

The truth is out there – it’s just difficult to find!

Welcome peoples thoughts.

​

I call on the mods to make this a formal rule, enforced ruthlessly on all.

This kind of discourse has no place on /r/UFOs. Ever.

It doesn't matter who is mocked or ridiculed or for what--skeptic, debunker, whistleblower, witness, believer, experiencer, random user, someone in a video. No deference. No consideration for the speaker. No consideration for the nature of the speech beyond:

​

• IF mockery OR ridicule
• THEN ban

​

None of these are relevant considerations:

1. Is the speaker a skeptic?
2. Is the speaker a debunker?
3. Is the speaker a public figure?
4. Is the speaker a believer?
5. Is the speaker a witness?
6. Is the speaker a claimed experiencer?

​

Only valid consideration:

1. Did the speaker engage in ridicule or mockery?

​

If that somehow disproportionaly impacts one part of the "UFO subculture", here's my response:

​

They will adjust their behavior to comply.

​

​

Active mods:

​

If you support--or don't--such a rule change, and you are a mod, I challenge you to stand up and say why or why not here, on the record.

​

• You are not under and never agreed to ANY obligation to keep things "in Discord".
• Mod team cohesision is not the mission.
• The mods are not the mission.
• Mod turnover rates themselves demonstrate that you are not the mission.
• You are allowed to use your voice, and to use it loudly in public.
• You are under no collective mod obligation or duty.
• Say what you want to say and need to say.
• If anyone says otherwise in the #Full-Moderators chat: ignore and obey your conscience, which has primacy.

​

​

Why this needs to be a rule:

​

• There is no justifiable need to mock or ridicule. Quite literally: none.
• It always makes things worse, without exemption.
• The subreddit has become completely feral and out of control, and it's because of this being allowed to happen so freely.

​

What is needed:

Public vote, let the /r/UFOs community decide how such a rule should work and be interpreted.

The mods are then all they are meant and intended to be: executors of community will.

​

​

​

Mods, consider:

​

You NEVER agreed to wear a muzzle, even micron-thin, as a mod.

​

Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

Nothing--nothing--they say in Discord can make that wrong be right.

It doesn't matter if it's another rolling all day, days long debate. It cannot be proven non-wrong. If any mod in Discord says don't do this--you are 100% free to ignore them, and it would be a violation of UFOs mod culture to penalize you in ANY way for doing so.

If they throw you out for speaking out here, or even ASK you not to reply here, then we know we have a confirmed corruption/breach of moderator team integrity and you have a duty to be a UFOs moderator whistleblower.

Do you want to be in there, if someone tries to manipulate your conscience to their ends?

​

​

If this post is removed, the moderator team is compromised.

‍

There has been a post on the sub for over half an hour which posts porn books and is allowing comments about high profile members of the community.

Is it to much to ask that the takeover of the sub by people endlessly attacking community members and determined to fill every thread with their anti-UFO rhetoric not include endless libellous slander?

Since when is Gay hate part of the topic?

I will not mince words: there has been an utter failure to uphold the description: "we aim to elevate good research while maintaining healthy skepticism". It is clear the majority of comments are now made by bots that actively lower the quality of discussion and derail the topic. It is an embarrassing situation that has grown out of hand. If the sub would admit that and then make stricter rules and attempt to enforce them, there is yet hope. But as is, far better ufo subs with substantial conversations specifically because they enforce strict rules. So, calling yourself "the UFO reddit" based on.. what, subscriber count? feels disingenuous at this point. It takes a masochist to post or interact with r/ufos at this point.

Good evening everyone! I think my friends should pay more attention to the sub. You are deleting messages claiming "duplication"...

The thing is, there is a difference between a video, a Twitter post, and a news link...

Although they sometimes cover the same topic, they can all bring different content. It's not just because the title has the same name that what is being presented is the same... Anyway, I appreciate the space and attention of those who read this. Have a great evening 🖖

I came across a thread on r/ufos and noticed one user was making fun of the other user for being an "experiencer". Saying they don't believe them and what not. This user then went to the experiencers comment history, and started making fun of them again about UFOs on a completely different subreddit. Are there rules against this that would get the user banned for harassing someone in a different subreddit, about a conversation that started in r/ufos?

Close to an hour ago, I posted this in r/UFOs: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ooVU4aYNsh

Archived here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs_Archives/s/mcxs7OLiqI

After half an hour or so, the post was taken down, with the bot claiming it was off topic/not UFO-related. Anyone reading the post will quickly surmise that it is anything but off topic.

Can someone explain what happened?

https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1iazx30/mick_west_outed_in_interview_for_getting_paid_to/

The post by u/YearHappyTimesNew22 above was taken down. It shows a snippet of a video interview hosted by Jesse Michels with Mick West debating Marik von Rennenkampff from 1h9m14s in the original video interview.

The post was up for 13 hours and garnered 1000 upvotes, 396 comments.

I haven't seen an explanation why this post was taken down, but hopefully this is part of a new push for "Civility" on the sub. "Civility" is the first rule of the sub, and posts about high profile individuals can descend into the realm of personal attack. "Low effort, toxic posts and comments regarding public figures may be removed" is also a rule for posts (although not for comments), and the lack of application of this particular rule is part of the reason for my post here on r/ufosmeta. There are plenty of examples of incivility and toxicity derailing of the sub recently.

It may be unintentional, but every day recently on the sub there are posts which attack high profile members of the UFO community, intimidate whistleblowers, attack researchers and reporters, and stigmatise the topic.

Here are some examples of all these sorts of posts in the last 2 days -

• Harassment of whistleblowers - Chris Bledsoe: Luis Elizondo was "groomed" to be in his whistleblower role

This comment in the thread "So it makes sense to me that Lue would be a plant whistleblower" which leads a pile-on of Elizondo. There is zero evidence Elizondo is a "plant whistleblower".

• Spreading false rumours about whistleblowers - Jake Barber: Toxic ingredients in American food and drugs have suppressed our psionic ability to communicate with UFOs/UAPs

Includes this libel "Oh don’t forget vaccines. He mentions medicine - I bet he’s an anti vaxxer" in a thread which tarnishes Barber's name with multiple other statements of unverified nonsense.

• Intimidation of whistleblowers and the whole Congressional whistleblower process - Jake Barber on why we weren't shown a better video This comment early in the thread "Yet another guy with a hidden agenda. Lots of words with no actual evidence." Barber has given testimony and evidence to Congress, and there is no evidence he has any "hidden agenda." This kind of comment libels the whole whistleblower process in Congress.

• Libel of whistleblowers and the whole Congressional whistleblower process - Does anyone else think that some of these newer 'whistleblowers' may be plants in order to hurt the credibility of the UAP topic as a whole? The title speaks for itself, but in the thread there are comments like this "These dudes are profiting from the movement, they’re not serious about disclosure."

• Harassment of whistleblowers - So it's okay to summon UAPs in front of billionaires but for us peasants you need clearance due to security reasons? The title speaks for itself, but it includes this early in the thread "How many ways do these people have to demonstrate that they're scammers and carnival barkers before you all understand it's just a game?" There is zero evidence Barber is a "scammer" or part of a "game."

• Ridicule of whistleblowers - High-Ranking Official Whistleblower Reports Experience with ‘Over 7-Foot-Tall Mantis Beings’ The "Best" comments from the top of the first thread "You gotta pay the troll toll to get in that boy’s soul" and "NHI after all these years....."We thought you said hole"" Neither of these comments uphold "civility" or are "substantive", but they lead the conversation and set the tone for umpteen attacks on whistleblowers throughout.

• Attacks reporters - Part two of our interview with retired Army special forces operator Lieutenant Colonel Dr. John Blitch discusses UAP whistleblower Jake Barber, why the government has covered up the UAP issue, and the path to reconciliation—Sunday, January 26th, 1 pm PST. Comments include this statement "Matt Ford is pathetic because he pushes the INFO op and doesnt even get paid to do it.... he thinks hes being patriotic."

• Stigmatises and disparages the topic and harasses whistleblowers Is anyone else feeling too bummed out with how the topic has been going on lately?

This in the OP -

"And if Barber is lying, why would we trust in Lue anymore? Since he tries to corroborate Barber sayings. And if we cannot put our trust in them, i'm not sure if we can trust in anyone else that had connections with them.

"Are all of them grifters?"

• Clear cut open attack on Whistleblowers and denigration of the US Congressional whistleblowing process - I was in the military: here’s what I know The top comment when sorted for "Best" comments "We should all remember that a former lieutenant general and national security advisor, Michael Flynn, is one of the very biggest pushers of the QAnon horseshit. People in very high places are often extremely stupid and more than willing to lie." What has "Michael Flynn", "QAnon", or people "willing to lie" have to do with whistleblowers coming forward to Congress with evidence for illegal activities?

To be clear, I am not saying all these posts were put up with the intention of attacking or harassing anyone or to deliberately stigmatise the topic, but that is what started happening in these threads, and it needs to be prevented.

Recently it is like the sub has been split in half. There are posts where issues are discussed, and people comment, even debate issues. And then there are posts with pile-ons, which attack high profile individuals, do not debate issues or provide clarifying information, and become one attack after another on individuals or the topic as a whole. As an example of a post which is even handed - We need a word from David Grusch. In that post there are comments there criticising Grusch, but equally comments supporting him - no pile on occurs and there are no threads with dozens of oneliner attacks making nonsense unverifiable commentary.

So I hope taking down this post about Mick West is an indication that there is a new policy of removing ALL posts which develop into pile-ons of high profile individuals. It would also be good if ALL posts which develop into events to denigrate and intimidate whistleblowers are also taken down as soon as the pile-on begins. Perpetrators of pile-ons should be banned for periods of time to prevent re-occurrences.

There is a place for skeptics and debunkers on the sub. Mick West should actually be encouraged to post more, as metabunk do some great work. Because of their major influence on the wider view of the topic debunkers are an essential part of the community. But threads that become detrimental to the topic, which essentially turn into oneliner attacks on individuals, this needs to be reigned in. The sub does not exist in a magical environment outside the law, but in a real world situation where the US Congress has passed laws to protect whistleblowers. Outright abuse of whistleblowers who are going through a legal process to tell what they know about possible illegal activities must be prevented.

There is historic US Federal legislation that has been passed to support whistleblowers revealing what they know. There is also move in Congress to investigate the perpetrators of stigma around this topic.

Hopefully the r/UFOs sub can one day claim to fully support whistleblowers and be widely recognised as part of the move to prevent stigmatisation.

We have a clearly organized push going on for figures like Barber, who's talking about angels and demons and how the spirit of God is guiding him to tell the truth to humanity. We also have the ever-so-organic attacks on even the idea of having any doubt in the guy. And all that's allowed as normal business in the sub.

In light of that, having a "No Proselytization" rule that only applies to no-name random people pushing their UFO religion seems pointless.

It has to be difficult managing a sub with 3 million members, not to mention one focused on a topic shrouded in mystery. Ya'll okay? I saw a post the other day mentioning you were looking for moderators. If not, could someone approve my most recent post? I'd like to share an "Average Joe" guide to using open-source AI tools to review hundred of hours of sky footage for UAP activity.

I'd like to dial up transparency and accountability at the r/UFOs subreddit. One idea I had to do that was to start an "exit interview" series for former moderators--similar to a journalist interviewing someone for a story.

When I heard u/LetsTalkUFOs say:

We recently implemented an Exit Interview process to try to discern [the] reasons [r/ufos moderators leave the team or become inactive ] in more detail, but have not utilized it yet (since we have not gone through our quarterly review of inactive moderators again yet). [which was part of a longer discussion]

I decided to post this because it may tie in well with that new process, and because exit interviews shouldn't be a secret thing done behind the scenes–although it's fine for it to have a component of that, if there's feedback that former moderators want to stay private to the moderator team.

🔸How would it work?

• It'd be done on r/ufosmeta, so there's no concerns about brigading.
• Former moderators would be given questions in advance, so that they can take their time with them.
• Former moderators and people participating in the thread still have to follow the rules of the subreddit, so they can't start trashing people.
• Former moderators can answer follow-up questions in the thread by users, if they wish.
• It could start with the most recent former moderators, and retrospectively include others over time.
• This could eventually be expanded to include an interview with existing moderators, and even new moderators who recently joined.
• All questions would be optional, though answers--even if brief--are encouraged.
• No names would be mentioned
• A master list of strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions would be created.
• There would be no timeframe or rush. Former moderators can take their time to answer questions, or take some time to cool off and create space and distance before answering them.

🔸Goals

• Increase transparency, raise awareness, and demystify
• Facilitate a civil, constructive exchange
• Identify strengths and what is working
• Identify weaknesses and what isn't working
• Identify common trends
• Identify solutions
• Create a more informed, engaged community
• Increase moderator accountability to the community and independent oversight
• Empower and give a voice to former moderators
• Provide former moderators an opportunity to debrief and some closure

I know some moderators would probably rather not have something like this, but this is the type of progressive stuff that I think breathes some positive change into a community that now has 3 million subscribers and counting.

🔹Accountability

An important part of this would be some sort of system to identify issues, projects, and action items, and a commitment from the moderator team to actually follow them up, or explain when they will be, or why they won't be.

🔸Proposed questions for former moderators

• When did you become a moderator?
• Why did you become a moderator?
• Did you have any previous or related experience prior to this role?
• Why are you no longer a moderator?
• What are the strengths of the subreddit? What works well?
• What are the weaknesses of the subreddit? What isn't working well?
• What changes, additions, or solutions would you like to see?
• Do you have a memorable event you would like to share?
• What do people most misunderstand about r/UFOs?
• What does r/UFOs do well–in general, or compared to other subreddits?
• Is there anything other subreddits are doing that r/UFOs should do?

🔹Other metrics

There would also be value in a more standardized survey of sorts where they can rate various metrics, with the option to give no rating for any question they choose.

Creating something like that would be a significant undertaking to do well. It'd be great if something like this could be created in collaboration and shared with all the UFO subreddits, not just this one. The collaboration between subreddits varies between non-existent and low level, and it results in a lot of time-wasting, life-wasting duplication. I will address that broader topic again at a later date.

🔸Questions about this proposal

🔹To moderators:

• Can we do this? Please answer as a collective (eventually), instead of only sharing individual opinions.
• If not, why not? What would need to change so we can do it?
• What suggestions do you have?
• What requests do you have?

I don't expect an immediate response. I'm aware of how busy you are. Take weeks or months if needed.

🔹To the community:

• What questions would you like asked?
• Do you have any suggestions?

🔸"We don't have time."

r/ufos should be taking on moderators who do things other than content moderation. They should have plenty of time–stuff like this should be what they do.

I've addressed this in the past and was told by u/YouCanLookItUp that it was a good idea, but it went into the feedback blackhole–the r/ufosmeta equivalent of an employee suggestion box at a workplace; those terrible paper ones where you have to handwrite or print out suggestions on scraps of paper–so who knows where it is now.

Also, you don't have time not to do stuff like this. Stuff that needs to be moderated is a consequence of the subreddit systems and leadership. Tweaking things can actually reduce the amount of moderation that is required. Not to zero, obviously, but somewhat.

🔸Disclaimer

I didn't collude with any former moderators to come up with this idea. I often say the leadership of the subreddit needs to be improved, so this is a basic example of that, drawing on the subreddit improvement scale I made.

I do stuff like this because r/ufos has 3 MILLION SUBSCRIBERS, prime name real-estate and SEO (there's no beating r/ufos), and is the largest subreddit on this topic–maybe even the largest community on this topic in the world. So as someone who takes the UAP topic seriously because I think it's important for our species, I have to take this subreddit seriously.

I read about the program here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ufosmeta/comments/13wcetn/comment/lg6uefl/

https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/18gv3na/adoptanadmin_sign_ups_are_open_for_2024/

In theory, it's a good program. Get the people at the top of the hierarchy in the trenches.

In practice, I find it pretty alarming. There's a significant power imbalance when admins are serving as moderators. People--both moderators and users--should know when they're dealing with someone with so much power. This information shouldn't be burried in the changelog.

Are Admins serving as moderators identified as such? I.e. "Reddit Admin" or something through user flair on both r/ufos and r/ufosmeta so people know who they're dealing with?

If not, can they be? It seems they're no longer serving, but for future.

If not, why not?

Also, the changelog should reflect that they've served their term and are no longer full moderators.

#🔸 The issue

Recently I found multiple things I didn't know existed, such as:

• moderator biographies (which includes moderator join date/hierarchy)
• a file that contains data from all the polls in 2024. I had no idea you even had that many polls.

I'm someone who's pretty knowledgeable about the subreddit. I.e. I'm here (meta subreddit). I know the subreddit history. I know of the wiki. Etc. Yet even I didn't know about these. That's a bad outcome. It means a HUGE amount of other users don't, either.

There are also issues such as the Wiki website. You've got a sitemap at the bottom, but it's not actually a sitemap.

So there's an obvious navigation problem. Even if there are search functions, most people won't even know what to search for.

#🔸 Solutions

🔹Too hard

Fixing navigation is... not something I'm confident you'll do well. It's pretty challenging, most people lack the skills and knowledge to do it, and it'll take hours to do.

I keep hearing how busy you are (why is everyone focused on content moderation? Another obvious issue), so you probably won't have time, anyway.

🔹Easy

So as an easy alternative, consider making one page that links to EVERYTHING. And linking to that from EVERYWHERE.

Perhaps a bot? There is one that notifies mods on Discord when a new post shows up here.

If a new post comes here, perhaps a bot will cross-post it to /r/UFOs, but locked and read only, directing users to come here?

The post on /r/UFOs would be a self-post, with a link to this exact discussion, and then a duplicate of the text body post here, if any.

I'd recommend it run on a delay of at least one hour, to give the OP user here on /r/ufosmeta to edit and tweak their post briefly before the cross post happens.

I'm all for skepticism and open discussions/debates. But the past several weeks their seems to be much more, hatred and ridicule in the comment chains than there is constructive discussion.

Why is this allowed?

And like I said. Skepticism and challenging claims is beyond necessary for the topic. But ridicule and outright insults serve no discussion, no matter the topic.

I originally posted this in r/UFOs, it got a lot of engagement, and then the mods deleted it. Why?

I’m frustrated this morning with the state of many posts and comment threads after the Age of Disclosure documentary announcement.

Per my "eye test," there could be a coordinated messaging campaign going on. The buzzwords du jour seem to be:

• UFO influencer
• UFO entertainment
• It’s unethical to make money on a documentary
• This won’t reveal anything new
• Yawn, another documentary
• The documentary doesn’t matter because it’s not evidence
• This is sensationalist like the egg segment on NewsNation

Some posts start out ostensibly with a new idea but then devolve into pushing the talking points.

Many comments are just a call and response of "This is bullshit" "Yes I concur" "I too think this is a nothing burger."

Also the pattern of comments - agreeing comments quickly flooding the thread soon after posting and the ratio of comments "on message" to dissenters is like 3:1 or higher.

Clearly naked attempt to shape the narrative on the documentary without flagrantly breaking any rules.

I’m basing this mainly on eye test… I don’t have the time or inclination to do a detailed word frequency analysis in real time or analyze dozens of accounts for patterns.

Can we not tamp down on low value talking point comments though that don’t meaningfully add to the topic of the main post? The "I agree" type comments and upvote behaviour can be abused for social engineering (taking advantage of the bias to conform to the crowd.

*RESOLVED* - posts were removed by a bot as an act of crowd control

Hi everyone,

I’m experiencing an issue with two posts I submitted to r/ufos, and I’m hoping someone here might be able to help clarify what’s going on.

Here’s what I’ve observed:

1. When I first submitted the posts, they appeared as “removed” because they were awaiting moderator approval. This seemed normal.
2. Earlier today, the posts appeared to go live from my perspective. On my account, they looked fully visible, with all the body text intact.
3. However, I noticed they weren’t showing up in the main feed (I confirmed this using an alternate account). Additionally, when someone views them through my profile, the posts have no body text.

I don’t think they’re still waiting for mod approval at this point, but I’m not sure what else might be causing this. Has anyone encountered something similar? Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance.

https://www.reddit.com/mod/UFOs/rules/

The longer rules are truncated (...) and therefore not readable in full.

Also the links are broken due to the default formatting seemingly not working on that page.

That's the whole question. I do not recall the logic behind this.

If they are banned on /r/UFOs, they are non-participants by default; their input on the subreddit is irrelevant.

If they are on /r/UFOs as an active participant on another account, that is ban evasion, which is against the site-level rules.

What value is there in banned users being allowed on /r/ufosmeta?

If they wanted to be unbanned, that's what mod mail is for.

A lot of major subreddits are doing this due to his nazi salute and many other abhorrent actions. Obviously Twitter carries a lot of original content, so asking for screenshots or a link to a snapshot of the page would be preferred over giving it actual traffic.

Edit:

The update from the moderators is that this isn't happening.

The arguments:

1. Musk is considering buying MSNBC, would that be banned too? This policy is a slippery slope and could lead to more and more domain bans.

2. We use reddit, and the owner of reddit is a bad person. Thus it would be hypocritical to boycott a platform while using a platform that is also owned by a morally dubious individual. The bad trait which was claimed is an extreme one that I could not find evidence for on searching.

Another moderator statement being that the subreddit is for ufology, and not political activism.

This: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/u0uUsn40SQ

Vs.

This: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOB/s/f1CNHTh2oQ

Which do you think is more useful?

Which do you think is more substantive?

Which do you think helps move things forward?

In keeping with rules about keeping the conversation civil and also with not accusing random users of being bots and bad actors, I think there’s a method we could employ that helps the sub’s tone and also helps create identifiable evidence of bad actors:

• Step 1 - user suspects the person they’re engaging with is uncivil to provoke a spat/engaging in talking points that don’t have to do with the topic at hand/being passive aggressive and insulting the user’s intelligence/gullibility/ability to argue etc
• Step 2 - user edits their top-level comment in the exchange with the user with some neutral but distinctive code e.g. "ptfft2025/[username]” (Potential Troll Flagged For Tracking 2025).
• Step 3 - smash that block button and stop engaging

I’m not knowledgeable about advanced tools and methods but presumably this type of tag isn’t antagonistic- it’s opinion and there’s no interaction- but provides a paper trail to build a case about bad actor accounts.

And if these accounts delete their comments to evade being noticed, the user names have been recorded.

Sure we might get false positives, but since it’s non-antagonistic then there’s really no downside. Suspend or ban people who use the tag without blocking/stopping engagement with the account. There’s limited abuse potential bc this only triggers a review (assuming tools can make use of this info).

Might help unclog mod queues and modmail.

Thoughts?

It is clearly obvious that prior to the release of last nights video on news nation there was a massive upshift in negative posts BEFORE it was released on tv and its still going on now. I would like to know what the mods are going to do about it as it looks like a coordinated attempt to control the narrative. Is there a plan to review the last 24 hours?

I know there are some people who genuinely didn’t like last nights interview and honestly I don’t care if they didn’t. I would like to hear from the moderators please?

The main sub needs to stop allowing self posts with people talking about how "excited" or "disappointed" they are, or further commentary about how people shouldn't be "excited" or "disappointed". It's been half the sub over the past 24 hours.

Tons of news and important stuff doesn't get posted and gets missed because the sub is flooded by these useless opinion posts. This sub should be the front page of UFO news on reddit. Not a soapbox of emotions.

Hi, I've lurked for years but never posted any of my own threads, until now. The other day I posted this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1i34dod/comment/m7jx6ez/

Do I not have enough post karma? Did I trigger automod or something?

I have been writing some longer content, deep dive type of stuff, that I would like to post in the future. I don't want them to get held up by automod or other issues. Is there anything I can do to ensure my threads actually become visible? Thanks.

I keep seeing podcasters and media personalities (cough Lue Elizondo cough) claim that we are only two weeks away from disclosure, or some big earth-shattering event - but nothing ever happens. People claimed that something big would happen in early to mid 2024, but nothing happened. We've been two weeks away from disclosure since the 70's at least.

At a certain point, we need to start keeping score and start blocking notoriously unreliable people, because this is getting ridiculous. The claims have been getting more and more extreme, and some personalities are straying into Q-anon style mysticism woo and the same "two weeks" claims every two weeks. The only thing that ever comes out of that is another book, podcast, or some other grift to make them money.

This isn't the paranormal sub, or r/Aliens. It's a sub for flying objects that need to be identified. It's for Tic Tacs, jellyfish, and orbs - not unsubstantiated claims of reality manipulation by large groups of people, or claims of angels and demons being aliens, or psychic communication with aliens who told you what to eat for breakfast. We're here for real shit, and that is not real shit. Anyone can claim anything without evidence and the only thing stopping us from being taken advantage of by grifters and wannabe cult leaders is good moderation and collective memory of all the times they lied to us.

So it's acceptable now to have one UFO personality advertise his personal attacks vs an other personality ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1i3301j/the_tedesco_brothers_reveal_shady_tactics_mick/

Mat Ford has been in the past quite rude in his language and accusations towards Mick West so this type of attitude is not new. What is bothersome is having him play the bully on these forums in order to incite others to follow his example on social media (and of course for increased viewership as that type of cheap behavior sells)

This is just a personal annoyance and wondered if others had this. Sometimes I put a lot of effort into a long comment/thread and get quite dissuaded when someone just responds with "lol nice chatGpt" or something similar.

Somehow, using paragraphs or certain words invites accusations that you're a LLM.

Whilst users can report a comment/thread for a rule violation for being Gen-AI - I don't want to completely ban the accusation. Following the trend of our shilling rules I'd like to propose we only prevent low effort AI accusations so where the shill violations are like so:

Allowed:

I thnk steven greer is a shill. The reason I think this is this video where he's shown on camera to be responsible for calling down UFO's which are clearly flares.

Now allowed:

Steven Greer? Don't listen to that grifter 

Whilst they both accuse a public figure of shilling, only the low effort type is removed here, where the higher effort is allowed.

The proposed AI accusation would be similar:

Allowed:

Here's a screenshot/link to the post the user made which is apparently 90% likely written by a LLM according to grammaly's AI checker. 

Disallowed

lol some kid with chatGPT
hello ai
nice one, I can copy and paste from chatgpt as well

etc

As always, my thinking is, continue to allow free-speech and allow us to accuse each other. But do so with effort and civilly, otherwise is discourages people and floods the sub with repetitive low effort spam.

Thoughts?

This post got a single view, likely because of the content, which I find amazingly suspicious. I then posted this image here and got 3k views in 5min, likely because a bot couldn't scan the text and shadow ban it. I'm not saying this is a certainty but isn't it curious?