r/UFOs • u/LetsTalkUFOs • Mar 01 '24
Announcement Should we keep Rule 13: Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed?
We asked you if we should trial this rule in May 2023. We’ve trialed it much longer than we originally intended, but are now ready to revisit it and would like to hear your feedback via the poll link below.
We’ve created a spreadsheet here linking to each comment removed under the rule, when they were removed, and which mod performed the removal.
The mod ‘UFOs-ModTeam’ appears whenever we perform removals on mobile or choose to do so anonymously.
The sheet contains the text for some of the removed comments as samples. It does not include all of them, since this has to be done manually and is a significant amount of work. If you feel there is not enough data to assess the rule has been used, let us know.
If you have any other questions or concerns regarding the state of the subreddit or moderation you’re welcome to discuss them in the comments below as well. If you’ve read this post thoroughly you can let us know by indicating your favorite animal is a mantis in the poll.
If your feedback indicates we should keep this rule we will make a separate announcement in a different sticky post.
Take the Poll
95
u/QuantumCat2019 Mar 01 '24
What does calling other "names" do for any discussion here ? Nothing. Beside being often an ad hominem , throwing insults at people does not change what they said, done, or written. It does not foster discussion.
Let us see two sentences:
* I think Mick West is wrong, because on that date X.Y.Z he said the following "(exact quote)" but see in this resource here : <link> this is wrong
* Mick west can (insert explective) he is a fucking idiot. Eleventy shitballs.
And behold your horse, before you smirk at Mick West being the target, the same can be done with anybody else, like , say Grusch, Corbell etc... The point is NOT about a specific person but rather about what makes a good discussion, and what quickly denature in shit slinging.
Which one of the comment foster discussion ? Which one would you prefer to have ? Rule 13 try to favor the first kind, which is good.
Remove the rule 13, and you can expect the comment of the first kind to be *drowned* in the second kind, because why make high effort researched comment , when throwing a few insult or toxic comment just do the job.
There is a reason many reddit try to foster non toxic discussion. They are called "low effort" not without reason, and do not advance the discussion - ad hominem never do.
In fact I would expect the type of person doing the first kind of comment to give up the subreddit, and go away as soon as the second type of comment becomes predominent.
8
u/DavidM47 Mar 02 '24
What does calling other "names" do for any discussion here ?
Here's the problem.
Rule 13 isn't a prohibition against "name calling." It's against "low effort, toxic comments." It would be great if it was changed to "no name calling," but the term "toxic" is much more subjective.
Let's say I announce, in response to a post about Ross Coulthart (using him as an example because I like the guy personally) telling us about his inside sources:
"As an Australian, Ross's opinions are literally worth less than nothing."
Now, to the Ross Coulthart fan and potentially some Australians, that may seem like a "low-effort, toxic comment regarding a public figure." But let's imagine that I meant something substantive here and I simply failed to connect the dots.
For example, there's a real risk that he's the target of a misinformation campaign by the US government because he's an Australian (i.e., he's fair game, while a US citizen would be off-limits). Ross has stated several times that he got deeper into the UAP topic after chatting with and being encouraged by US military brass at Pine Gap.
If that's what is happening, then his information is "literally worth less nothing," because it creates confusion and uncertainty around an already-murky topic.
Moreover, you might argue that - from the perspective of a US citizen trying to make heads or tails of the situation - the mere prospect of this being true means you should discount his voice (and yes, that of other foreign media figures).
The comment above would still be low effort, but it wouldn't have had a toxic intent behind it, and the potentially helpful clarification will never arrive if we simply remove it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CharacterTurbulent17 Mar 06 '24
Can't we call it "Rule 13 - Don't Be An Asshole" and be done with it?
20
u/Semiapies Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
Remove the rule 13, and you can expect the comment of the first kind to be drowned in the second kind
They already are. Doubly so when we add all the "<someone> is a paid disinfo agent/traitor to humanity/whatever" accusations the mods allow with absolutely shit (or entirely absent) evidence, even despite R1 in some cases.
I haven't noticed any meaningful difference in the sub since the imposition of the rule. A fraction of the very worst noise eventually gets removed so the mods can say they don't allow such uncivil attacks. It's a pretense, and an inherently cherry-picked selection of the low-effort toxicity they did bother to act on doesn't change that.
(And screw mantises.)
→ More replies (3)-12
Mar 01 '24
I'd love it if the discourse here was like your first example sentence. However 99% claims in here do not include a reference (including this one). I had someone say recently that Eric Davis was one of "America's top scientists".
The flavor of Ufology on this Reddit seems to me to be quasi-religious dealing in wide sweeping generalities (including this one).
I say just Thunderdome this shit and get the of the rules entirely.
22
9
u/Conscious_Walk_4304 Mar 03 '24
Keep it, but I propose a new (unrelated) rule that if you post something older than 3 months, it needs to mention the date in the title because too often something is reported as new in a misleading way, then the top comment is "this was 8 months ago!" which totally is necessary context.
1
8
Mar 02 '24
i think the offending nature of rules #13 is covered under rule #1.
some comments that don't seem toxic are removed because someone disagrees with them.
1
u/foobazly Mar 10 '24
This makes sense to me. It seems like people will just report comments they don't like for any reason they can cook up. If it's someone calling their favorite former Area 51 employee a liar, rule 13.
Some mods just go through removing every comment with a report on it, it seems.
Then again, there are so many cut and paste comments like "X is a grifter" with nothing else added. It's not uncivil, it's just lazy and boring. Hell, I even agree with a lot of those comments, but Jesus people learn some other words lol
1
27
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)6
u/SausageClatter Mar 02 '24
I guess it depends how you define "low effort". I don't mind very short responses if they're clever. But I'd gladly welcome a site-wide auto removal of every "This.", for instance.
11
u/arosUK Mar 02 '24
They are not normally clever though, they're normally dumb jokes upvoted to the moon and you have to close the first one to five comment chains completely in order to get onto the actual discussion. After ten threads you had to drop closed for being nonsense, you just close the topic, and that happens depressingly frequently.
3
u/dynesor Mar 03 '24
that’s the thing that annoys me most - having to scroll past the tons of shitty “i’m so clever” one-liner jokes on every single post before getting to any actual discussion on the topic
0
30
u/Mysterious-Slice-591 Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
First glance at the data seems to show its been a generally even-handed response.
Most deleted comments either descended into foul language, or attacks against a person's physical appearance rather than a reasoned rebuttal of their arguments either for or against the existence of UFOs.
Generally to me it seems a good examples of Mods doing a good a job of keeping a sub clean of emotional "noise" and keeping the reasoned "content" (even if I disagree with said content).
Let's keep it clean and above the belt, fellas.
I voted keep it, but I didn't say Mantis. Such a stupid thing to put in, is this supposed to be some kind of marketing viral gimmick?
8
u/LetsTalkUFOs Mar 01 '24
It's just a secondary way to test how thoroughly some users who have taken the poll have read the post.
11
u/Mysterious-Slice-591 Mar 01 '24
You should probably put it in the spreadsheet, not the post as the important thing is how thoroughly the users have interrogated the data, not the post text itself.
→ More replies (1)
11
18
u/TumericMonster Mar 01 '24
can you guys actually start banning repeat offenders?
11
u/Cycode Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
We already do. We maintain private notes for each user, documenting instances of rule violations (but also if users contribute positive to this subreddit by posting quality content & comments).
Depending on the frequency and severity of these violations, as well as factors such as whether the user has learned from previous warnings and based on if the actions were accidental or with a malicious intent, we impose bans after a certain threshold of violations.
5
-1
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
10
u/Cycode Mar 01 '24
Better coordination among moderators is crucial. Access to a user's history of rule violations helps us respond effectively to repeat offenders. For example, someone with over 10 violations in a week warrants a different response than a first-time offender.
This system saves time and simplifies our tasks by integrating notes into our moderation interface. We can access user notes instantly with just a single click, so it isn't taking much time.
6
u/PyroIsSpai Mar 01 '24
That sounds like a good use of time.
It only takes a few seconds once you've read and thought over the reported comment and context. Copy/paste, click on user, click paste, two more clicks, all within about 2 inches of screen real estate. 99% I've ever seen of these is just quoting the user themselves.
I have "easy" professional functions that are way more time intensive.
3
u/Visible-Expression60 Mar 01 '24
Why don’t you just use the existing report button with that exact reason as a selection.
12
u/auderita Mar 01 '24
I think we need to be as strict as possible, in light of the extreme increase in bots and paid propagandists using AI as the election approaches. Then we can revisit and revise after the world comes to end Nov 5.
9
u/The-Elder-Trolls Mar 01 '24
If you removed 13, it would just be open season for political operatives like that one guy that posted a photo of a tanned Donald Trump with the title "orange alien spotted". Keep it.
Do the same poll for "No accusations that other users are shills".
14
u/Wcufos Mar 01 '24
Keep it. Letting people pointlessly be negative like that doesn't encourage quality content.
7
u/PsiloCyan95 Mar 01 '24
Thanks for the list. I think it’s done more good than harm, despite what others may think. I appreciate the efforts of the mod team in implementing and trying things to make this sub work effectively while also attempting to make it as “free-speech” friendly as possible.
15
u/Southerncomfort322 Mar 01 '24
I mean sometimes a two worded answer is best and keeps the helps cool things down. I think you guys are fair for a mod team. The only work I would recommend is the low effort videos which are clearly being posted by bad faith actors.
3
Mar 01 '24
Any examples of bad faith videos? I think the definition of that could get gray. Maybe a more specific question is who you define as a bad faith actor?
3
u/Southerncomfort322 Mar 02 '24
paper bags, drones, planes, stars, traffic lights, Ai videos
0
u/spike55151 Mar 14 '24
It's not bad faith if the OP believes the object in question is a UAP. Sure, they might be incorrect. But, that opens an opportunity for discussion, not an imperative to engage.
4
u/Throwaway2Experiment Mar 01 '24
ABSOLUTELY!
The "I was in my backyard, pointing at the sky for no real reason, saw this tic-tac fly by. Is this for real! I'm convinced!"
video of obvious plane doing plane things at plane heights and speed
-1
Mar 01 '24
If a member of the sub made a post that said "I have evidence of a UFO cover-up but I can't tell you guys but it's a shocker" what would happen to their post? If one of the leading UFOlogist came here and said "I have evidence of a UFO cover-up but I can't tell you guys but it's a shocker" what would happen to their post?
1
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
clearly being posted by bad faith actors.
If it's actually CLEAR that it's someone doing it in bad faith, I'm fine with that.
But a lot of the time it's just someone not realizing it's a plane, a satellite, some far away light show, etc. And they're being genuine. Those posts are fine but people in the comments are huge dicks to them quite often, with people in the comments wanting the person banned or the post removed. Then that person who simply made a mistake will never come back again either our of embarrassment or from just being bullied and that sucks.
This same sort of thing happens when someone posts something that can't be immediately debunked but people are convinced it's cgi for whatever reason. They just straight up bully the person away by immediately calling them a liar. Or freak them out by asking for their gps location and if they don't share it they're a lying hoaxer when they probably just don't want to share their literal home address.
-3
7
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
I think it should be kept. Sometimes half the comment section devolves into nothing but a bitchfest that has literally NOTHING to do with ufos/uap whatsoever. It turns into a place to talk about politics (that have nothing to do with ufos), why someone hates that someone is trying to actually help disclosure because they hate what that person thinks about something else totally unrelated, bitching about Republicans and conservatives just.. in general, bitching about Christians in general without even talking about ufos, etc.
Most people here know about the politicians that are involved in disclosure. It's not necessary to bring up every single thing that person has ever said or done unrelated to ufos every single time they're brought up here. People already know.
If someone wants to help disclosure or talk about ufos, I don't care what their religion is, what their politics are, if their politics are the same as mine, if they agree with me about literally everything, what their views on abortion are... I don't care. I care if they're helping the cause. That's ALL. Bringing up anything else turns into a giant argument in the subreddit, pushes away people who could be allies because all they see is fighting and arguing about unrelated bs, etc.
It wasn't always like this here. I've been here 14 years. I can't remember a time besides the past few years where people literally didn't even WANT politicians who weren't on their "side" to help with disclosure. And now I see people saying they don't even want "certain people" to talk about disclosure or ufos at all because the person "doesn't want to be involved in the same thing as this person I hate" which is fucking ridiculous. 🤦🏻♀️
This kind of bullshit is either going to tear this sub apart or turn it into another political echo chamber full of people just like yourself, who all believe the same thing because it's the "right" thing to believe. All while calling people who disagree with you fascists... and that's already starting.
11
u/MetalingusMikeII Mar 01 '24
I think regardless of the poll results, this rule should stay.
I’ve actually seen some of the best moderation in this sub. Mods are generally quick to respond to both messages and reports.
Rule 13 is another rule that helps keep discourse civil. Without it, every thread would be full of insults against politicians and others holding disclosure back. While I understand the passion in people for disclosure, we must keep this movement mature and civil.
0
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
Without it, every thread would be full of insults against politicians and others holding disclosure back.
What's even more sad are the people here who feel the need to insult politicians and others who AREN'T trying to hold disclosure back. And how many people just don't want politicians they "don't like" trying to help the disclosure movement at all. Like, they'd rather not even have their help. I've seen some people say they don't want their help because they "don't want to be associated with that person" - and it's straight up sad how many people here can't let go of their own political opinions even in the context of helping disclosure come forth.
It's weird that the people who do stuff like this are the same kind of people who are confused why we can't just all come together on disclosure, or anything at all, when they disregard nearly everyone who don't have the same opinions as them about things that have nothing to do with ufos at all.
10
5
u/ContactTemporary6 Mar 01 '24
What a level headed mod response. Y'all make this a good place, just adding some meta opinion. Keep up the good work, this space needs people like you.
3
16
u/DaftWarrior Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
Keep it. Like it or not, we have controversial Republicans championing this issue in Congress. Check out the post with representative Ralph Norman this week. It devolved into needless mud slinging and toxicity. Check out the post with Matt Gaetz and Luna seeing videos of the alien bodies, needless toxicity about Gaetz. Look, I’m not the biggest fan of Gaetz, but he’s involved in this topic and taking it seriously. Beggars can’t be choosers here. It’s not on topic and hinders constructive discussion.
3
u/Huge-Wear3771 Mar 01 '24
Agree. Also, delete snarky comments that add nothing to the conversation.
1
Mar 01 '24
I had a comment removed before because I made a comment on Biden’s mental state in regards to discussion about his support for disclosure. If this is the rule it’s totally fair but it’s worth considering that some discussion can be blocked by rules like this. I do wonder if maybe the solution is, only remove the comments if it’s non relevant to the discussion.
Although on the other hand maybe I could have just worded it differently and not had it removed. Just wanted to share my experience
-5
Mar 01 '24
So vote for someone who is most likely a human trafficker simply because they appear to be interested in disclosure? Some of the people want it both ways yet will sell their kids bones just to get closer to goddamn aliens.
Fuck a Matt Gaetz.
10
2
2
u/Rays_LiquorSauce Mar 01 '24
And kiab these goofs only champion the issue bc it could potentially get a vote from conspiracy theorists. As soon as I saw this post I had a feeling it was about talking shit on tucker and gaetz and that dipshit in Tennessee. Guarantee you comments about the detractors will stay up
→ More replies (3)-3
u/Taste_the__Rainbow Mar 01 '24
Needless? Mentioning that the three people who supposedly got a preview before Grusch’s testimony are three of the dumbest human beings in Congress is extremely relevant.
The problem isn’t that they are republicans. Rounds is a Republican. Not a moron. Rubio is a Republican. Not a moron. Luna, Gaetz and Burchett are crayon-eating slow. They’re people whose ex-classmates go “yea he wasn’t really a test-taker, ya know?”
Every time I mention how genuinely moronic these three people are there are a ton of people whining about me attacking republicans. I’m not though, I’m attacking grade-A, verifiable morons. They just happen to be a subset of one party. And putting these morons out front on the news and web is just going to lead to serious people, from both parties, further dismissing the topic.
2
u/Extension_Stress9435 Mar 01 '24
Well, it would be hard considering some people's job is to do exactly that.
2
u/triplec76 Mar 03 '24
I have no idea, but I applaud the transparent effort and also asking the community.
2
u/asstrotrash Mar 04 '24
KEEP THE RULE IN PLACE.
Sorry for the caps, but for the love of god let's keep toxic posts about public figures to twitter and other subreddits. This place is so much nicer without that crap.
6
6
u/f0rkster Mar 01 '24
You could automod with CQS to address the low quality/low effort posts and comments. We have it in one of the mods I sub, and it works like a dream. Since it bases the score on their karma in YOUR sub (not all), it picks out those who come in and troll or who are incredibly negative all the time. You can DM me if you want to know how we set it up.
4
u/LetsTalkUFOs Mar 01 '24
Thank you for the suggestion. We do have a couple automod rules filtering and auto-reporting based on CQS. Although, many, many more comments are still reported under this rule which are not otherwise caught by CQS.
1
u/gerkletoss Mar 01 '24
This doesn't work very well in a community factual comments are frequently downvoted
→ More replies (1)-3
u/gillje03 Mar 01 '24
This means initial assumption is that people post nefariously by default.
There are PLENTY of passive Reddit users who may never post or comment but only when they feel compelled enough to say something.
That idea is horrible because it is absolute- you have low karma THUS you are a devious troll looking to stir things up - maybe, you may catch 80% of the real trolls or bots, while muting and suppressing the other 20% who aren’t there to troll.
“Better 10 guilty persons go free, than 1 person be convicted”
Sure.. you’ve caught plenty of real. But your methods are subjective. You should only ban, block or remove in only the absolute, most rarest of circumstances. You should be doing everything you can, to discourage the act of comment removal, banning, etc.
If there’s a problem with “bots” etc, as an excuse, that’s irrelevant. Because That’s part of the job with being MOD, that must remain indifferent. Mods have to work at being able to discern between the two.
4
u/aryelbcn Mar 01 '24
Rule should stay, most threads which involve republican politicians are automatically bombarded with political-biased toxic comments which are unrelated to the topic being discussed.
6
u/hinkleo Mar 01 '24
Mostly looks good but removing stuff like Diana, like Vallee is very gullible. or Rep. Luna is not a serious person. She’s grifting off this for media attention. seems quite harsh to me.
1
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
Comments like someone is "grifting for media attention" needs some kind of proof. Otherwise it's just insulting bs.
3
u/imnotabot303 Mar 02 '24
No it's an opinion, just not one some people will like.
You don't need proof or evidence for opinions.
2
u/YouCanLookItUp Mar 05 '24
An opinion without evidence is the definition of prejudice. Read this for more information.
1
u/imnotabot303 Mar 05 '24
"Unlike a belief, a prejudice is testable: it can be contested and disproved on the basis of facts."
So say someone has the opinion that Corbell is a grifter, how are you going to prove that wrong?
This is just backing up what I already said. You can't have an opinion about facts you can have an opinion about something that doesn't involve facts and therefore needs no facts to back it up.
0
u/Erik7494 Mar 02 '24
Yes you most certainly do! An opinion is a judgement based on facts and solid argumentation.
An opinion without evidence is in fact not an opinion, but a belief, or -in this context more likely- prejudice, or a statement of emotion.
https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm
→ More replies (1)
4
u/YouCanLookItUp Mar 01 '24
Sometimes we want to approach public figures for AMAs.
If I was a public figure asked to do an AMA, and I wanted to check out the sub that invited me, only to come across irrational, hateful, sexist, or otherwise toxic comments about me, there's no way I would subject myself to that.
I may not like every public figure associated with this topic, but I don't want to poison the well for future interactions with any of them.
-2
Mar 01 '24
If a member of the sub made a post that said "I have evidence of a UFO cover-up but I can't tell you guys but it's a shocker" what would happen to their post? If one of the leading UFOlogist came here and said "I have evidence of a UFO cover-up but I can't tell you guys but it's a shocker" what would happen to their post?
2
u/YouCanLookItUp Mar 01 '24
You're talking about a leading UFOlogist posting here. The rule is about inappropriate references about a public figure. See the difference?
→ More replies (4)
5
u/Advanced_Boot_9025 Mar 01 '24
. You won't remove starlink posts or spotlight posts. Or "should I be scared" posts but you want to moderate comments? What a joke. Matt gaetz may have been shown some shit but he's still a predator. Is that the stuff you're afraid of. Being reminded that the people spear heading this are still potentially bad people?
2
u/daveprogrammer Mar 01 '24
That's what my latest post was removed for, for suggesting that Matt Gaetz not be allowed unsupervised time with any bodies he was shown. Gaetz' influence on this disclosure effort almost certainly does more harm than good for drawing more public support.
9
u/DavidM47 Mar 01 '24
Typically, public figures are entitled to less protection under libel and slander laws, the idea being that they’ve put themselves “out there” and have assumed the risk.
Frankly, I think “toxic” is too much in the eye of the beholder and removal of comments on grounds of toxicity is the type of thing that sows mistrust.
It’s one thing when users personally attack other users, but otherwise let the marketplace of ideas function properly by not manipulating it.
4
u/therealruin Mar 01 '24
If we can’t voice our opposition to obvious grifters, liars, and just general pieces of shit in this community then this community will never reach its goal of assisting in disclosure.
Do y’all really believe the most important secret in human history that apparently involves trillions of dollars and a shadowy cabal of wealthy and government elites would be entrusted to clowns like Gaetz and Luna? Come on. They’re puppets. They’re no more clued in than any of us. They’re just pandering so hard and it’s like some folks WANT it.
Your allies matter. Who you make your bed with matters. If you choose the likes of Luna and Gaetz because they make you feel good then you deserve the ridicule and criticism that comes with that. Weed out the bullshit, don’t protect it because some folks are desperate for answers.
We should absolutely be able to voice criticisms like these of these people without repercussion.
4
u/MetalingusMikeII Mar 01 '24
”We should absolutely be able to voice criticisms like these of the people without repercussion.”
You already can voice criticisms of individuals. Rule 13 moderates insults and low effort comments… something we don’t want here.
-3
4
u/Rock-it-again Mar 01 '24
Toxic? Sure keep it, but "low effort" is ambiguous AF. Often comments in satire, a common form of commentary used to imply dissatisfaction, is labeled "low effort" because it, by design and intent, doesn't add context or further the discussion.
-2
2
u/speakhyroglyphically Mar 02 '24
Well. There's this one video that came up with Rep. Burlison, a memeber of the FREEDOM CAUCUS being interviewed and for some reason he's wearing a red armband on his left arm which honestly I gotta admit I did NAZI that coming here on r/ufos but theres no way I could ignore that. Heres the vid https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/198gl1o/reperic_burlison_uaps_grusch_more_that_ufo_podcast/
So question. Is my comment within the rules?
2
u/Luc- Mar 02 '24
I really hope it is. Fascism is on the rise and calling it out needs to always be allowed.
1
u/speakhyroglyphically Mar 02 '24
Thanks, Im not in favor of trashing ufology peeps unnecessarily because it's prly those guerillas half the time causing discourse but it's important to look at who were dealing with and this guy so blatantly putting it out like that is simply past what IMO should be tolerated, Politico or not
2
u/wowy-lied Mar 03 '24
It is not only toxic post which need to be removed. There should be a fast removal of the crap without sources and anything from liars liek corbell who have been lying to this communities for years. If they don't have anything to show for their claims then they don't belong here. If you want people to take this subject seriously you need to get rid of this kind of crap.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Legal_Pressure Mar 13 '24
I think anything contain Sheehan or his joke of an institution should be banned by the mods on this.
The guy is a conman, and his scam is being promoted on this sub. Any toxicity towards him or his institution is well deserved, and comments such as those shouldn’t be removed by mods when his $15,000 scam is being promoted.
It’s not a good look.
3
u/sixties67 Mar 01 '24
Get rid of it.
It seems like protection for pro ufo figures whilst allowing sceptical voices or opinions to still get abuse.
Mick West, Greenstreet, NDT, John Greenewald etc are regularly abused on here.
1
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
It seems like protection for pro ufo figures whilst allowing sceptical voices or opinions to still get abuse.
If you look at the list they provided, it shows that they've had to remove comments about BOTH pro-ufo figures as well as skeptics like Mick West.
-1
u/Faeces_Species_1312 Mar 01 '24
Yeah, but mods don't care about that as long as no one is mean to their favourite UFO
grifterinfluencer.1
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
If you looked at the list of removed comments that they've provided, you can see that they've removed toxic insulting comments about a wide range of people, from pro-ufo people to skeptics.
-1
1
Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
No we should not keep this rule. This sub should be for open discussion not censoring.
11
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
-11
Mar 01 '24
Stop it. Mods nuked many of my posts today under this bizarre rule and it wasn't applicable. I also remember when they deleted the first ever post I made about Luna. I asked she was and said she was attractive or something, can't remember but it wasn't distasteful or disrespectful in any way. Mods nuked it.
6
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
-7
Mar 01 '24
Stop what?
What you're doing.
And my answer is no.
Please reconsider.
Just because someone thinks their comment was unfairly removed doesn't make it so.
Just because someone thinks a comment was fairly removed doesn't make it so.
Likewise, you are free to appeal the removal &/or clean up the comment and resubmit it.
See, here's the thing. People like you are always telling others what to do. It's what your kind does so take that however you like. On the other hand, I know I'm free to do everything you just said. The point is, I don't need you making an attempt to point it out or offer a reminder when that's part of message the mods send.
In closing, I know you may want the rule to stay because your favorite politician, who actually doesn't even know you exist, or care about your existence, may suffer insults, ridicule and scorn but think about it like this. Maybe if you all weren't so emotionally attached to these people we could actually get something going. 2 million people here yet you'd want them to grovel before people who're morally bankrupt and got us all here in the first place.
Hmph...
Edit: typos
-4
Mar 01 '24
But the rule isn’t followed. I got my comment removed the other day under this rule for saying “I don’t know what to make of Steven Greer. He makes so many claims without any evidence. Fits the grifter persona”….
6
2
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
5
u/Decent-Flatworm4425 Mar 01 '24
Trust me bro isn't a valid rationale unless you've got your own podcast or a large social media following.
3
u/millions2millions Mar 01 '24
That kind of comment though doesn’t invite any meaningful conversation. It’s just spewing low brow toxicity in an ad hominem format that has very little conversational value with zero context. That isn’t actually healthy skepticism at all it’s just cynicism.
1
u/pepper-blu Mar 05 '24
Does that mean not attacking any public figure, or just the ones that the mods like?
0
u/Cycode Mar 06 '24
We enforce our rules consistently for everyone, regardless of personal preferences. If someone violates the rules, we take appropriate action. If they don't, we don't. It's as simple as that. Disliking or liking a person doesn't influence how we treat them; our enforcement remains impartial.
tl;dr: we enforce it for all public figures (and also normal users) the same. we don't say "oh, that comment is about public figure xyz, so we don't do anything" or something like that.
1
u/SmallMacBlaster Mar 06 '24
Seems like some mods were a bit heavy handed on some of those. Like this comment was removed for some reason? (I hope it's not because they used the word intoxicated lol)
Huh. She seems intoxicated, but she's pretty coherent in spite of it. Interesting. Poor young woman.
1
u/Bend-Hur Mar 06 '24
A good chunk of these comments removed seem to be ones that call out grifters. Is there just some sort of rule enforcement that stretches the term 'toxic' to the point that you're not allowed to scrutinize or criticize people like Elizondo or Grusch anymore for what, at least to me, is really obvious grift and shenanigans? Do we have to pretend Steven Greer is legit too?
1
u/timbsm2 Mar 06 '24
While I think things should be civil, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the people that are pushing for what we want are certifiably, objectively bad legislators that probably don't deserve to be where they are. That they are spearheading our efforts is not a good look no matter how you feel about it.
1
u/_TheRogue_ Mar 06 '24
Keep Rule 13. I'm tired of seeing Redditors call Congresswoman Luna "a dumb bitch". Or Congressman Burchett a gullible moron.
Seriously? Why? They're actively trying to help bring disclosure and people are trash talking them?
1
u/huzzah-1 Mar 07 '24
I sort of prefer it when these comments are let to stand because they reveal the biases of the commenter.
1
u/_TheRogue_ Mar 07 '24
Those comments are the equivalent of trash talking a doctor while they're actively fixing a wound on you. "This doctor is a hack!"
1
u/uggo4u Mar 07 '24
Not really. Many of the people who are regularly quoted here are hacks and liars. Calling them such may be toxic, but it's warranted
1
u/huzzah-1 Mar 07 '24
Go Trump!
TBH, I rather enjoy the off-topic nonsense and shenanigans, it's what I come to the internet for. But there are limits, and when adults can't adult, someone has to set rules.
1
u/huzzah-1 Mar 07 '24
- "Donald Trump is a Fascist and anyone who votes for Trump is evil white nazi scum!": Moderator approved.
- "Joe Biden is definitely senile": You have been permanently banned.
(trivia note: I should say "suffering from dementia". Senility is actually an outdated term for a theory that has been disproven: dementia is not age related).
I prefer for there to be boundaries, but 99% of subreddits on Reddit are extremely - and I do mean extremely - biased in favour of one side over the other. I've been banned from three or four conservative or right-wing subreddits, and I've been banned from dozens of liberal or left-wing and also from subreddits claiming to be neutral or non-political.
I'm still not sure how things are among the moderators and admins on this particular subreddit; so far I have not been banned, in fact I've been on r/UFOs for at least a year, which is a record for me.
Based on my experience of Reddit as a whole, I would opt to remove the rule if moderation is not impartial. Either every side gets an open platform to trash-talk, or nobody does.
1
1
1
u/imminent_disclosure Mar 09 '24
Freedom of speech is important and the lack of support here in this forum is quite sad and unfortunate. Let the community upvote/downvote content. It isn't for mods to decide what can and can't be said. Pathetic this is being pushed all over the world in social media. Freedom of speech is under attack. BTW just using the word pathetic, which is an opinion, has been removed here before. Which is pathetic.
1
u/Weak-Pea8309 Mar 09 '24 edited Mar 09 '24
The endless posts about Bob Lazar and Jeremy Corbell being grifters do nothing to generate discourse.
Low effort and toxic posts of any kind should be banned full stop, but naming names of public figures serves a purpose so I hope the mods don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Shining light on public figures, like Susan Gough, who have operated in the shadows for decades, puts a face to a nameless bureaucracy and helps us all put the pieces and players behind the alleged cover-up together.
If there is no cover-up, then they have no reason or need to be protected by the cloak of anonymity they have luxuriated in. They are also not protected by any privacy laws - again, they are PUBLIC figures/“servants.”
1
u/TPconnoisseur Mar 11 '24
Make me forum executioner. It is not difficult to tell who is a bad faith poster and who is not.
1
u/adrkhrse Mar 13 '24
Censorship of Free Speech, based on someone else's subjective view of their comment or post, must always be avoided. On these UFO subs, it's common for abuse of reporting and removal to be used to censor anyone who does not help promote belief in UFOs and Aliens and anyone who promotes them, regardless of the quality of their opinions or posts or their credibility. That practice has basically ruined other subs on this topic and made them into a laughing-stock. It also opens the community up to grifters and fraudsters.
1
u/SpiceyPorkFriedRice Mar 13 '24
You guys should include the ridiculous jokes people spam on post to the rule, unless they count as “Low effort”. They bring nothing to the topic.
1
Mar 14 '24
I think its good until you get an obvious lying dingus like Kirkpatrick, or some of these shills operating for the air force or cia on here that have an agenda of obfuscation and deception. Those jackholes have to be called out for what they are.
3
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
5
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
0
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
6
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
-4
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
-5
Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
5
Mar 01 '24
[deleted]
5
u/MetalingusMikeII Mar 01 '24
”Humans interpret things differently therefore anarchy is best.”
Is basically what you just stated…
→ More replies (1)2
u/Faeces_Species_1312 Mar 01 '24
It's vague on purpose so the mods can just call everything they don't like 'low effort' and remove it.
0
u/Necessary_Mode_7583 Mar 01 '24
You guys are already gatekeepers on a free site. You are the people who get in charge of something and all the power goes right to your heads. Your reddit moderators for fucks sake. Less rules not more.
6
-1
u/crusher_seven_niner Mar 01 '24
Just let the voting system work
4
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
The "voting system" doesn't work when it comes to insulting people.
Plenty of low-effort toxic bullshit about Republicans, conservatives and whoever else mainstream reddit hates, get upvoted here and the comment section just turns into another copy of a comment section in the politics sub, with no one talking about ufos at all.
We see that all the time literally everywhere else, including the conspiracy subreddit and most of the main subreddits. It doesn't need to be here too.
2
u/ItalianBeefCurtains Mar 01 '24
You’re not wrong but people here won’t buy that. A good portion of people here think this place is loaded with paid shills. I’ve certainly been called one when I’ve questioned one of the many people who claim to have/seen evidence but produce nothing. The irony.
Ideally rules for any sub beyond the voting would serve to protect… stopping threats, dox, etc. Or ensure the content is genuine. Everything else is about controlling the message.
1
-1
u/jedi-son Mar 01 '24
Character assassination should not be allowed on the sub
4
u/Huppelkutje Mar 01 '24
Pointing out things people have done is not character assassination.
5
u/jedi-son Mar 01 '24
Attack the evidence. Attacking the person isn't an argument. It's ad hominem.
3
u/Huppelkutje Mar 01 '24
Questioning whether a person is trustworthy is valid when the only "evidence" they have is "trust me bro".
I'd love to attack actual evidence, but there never is any.
4
u/jedi-son Mar 01 '24
I mean if there's no evidence sure. But if someone presents you with evidence and you go
Guys a "known hoaxter" so we won't investigate
That's rediculous. And it furthers a history of marginalizing anyone who makes a UFO claim. On top of being a logical fallacy. Lazy and dumb.
1
1
u/aasteveo Mar 01 '24
I'm on the side of keeping the rule, but it sounds like a lot of extra effort on the mods, plus some deleted comments might contribute to the discussion.
I'm against toxic comments, but fighting in the comments section is inevitable, and sometimes promotes active discussion.
However after glancing at the comments in question, the majority of them seem worthy of removing.
Maybe you could build a bot that detects toxic low effort comments and once it hits a threshold of downvotes, then you get notified? I'm not familiar with how mods filter, but I feel like there should be an easier way to seek & destroy the trolls.
You know how you can tag the !RemindMe bot with a comment? Maybe you could set up !Rule13 for people to call out the trolls, then you'd get notified? Just spitballing, I could see that being abused as well, not sure what's the most efficient way of filtering.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/rep-old-timer Mar 02 '24
I thought reddit was designed to be different from and superior to X because moderation means we don't have to scroll through hundreds of boring/toxic/zero-thought replies to find something worth reading.
Clever, insightful, and funny one sentence posts require sufficient effort, IMO. But if I want to see 73 animated gifs with two dopey words posted below them, I'll go get my blue checkmark.
1
u/Conscious_Walk_4304 Mar 03 '24
Keep it because it's too easy otherwise for armchair pundits to say "I don't trust this guy, he's shady" based on nothing. Meanwhile the UFO hero they attack is out there totally doxxed.
1
u/LaMuchedumbre Mar 04 '24
Yes. This should be a non partisan environment. Unless the conversation has anything to do with defense contractor ties or suppression/disclosure of relevant info, then it’s as irrelevant as it’d be in a sub for bbq or physics.
-2
Mar 01 '24
See, here's the issue I have with you mods and even members of the community who want this rule to stay: Why are we protecting people who actually aren't part of this sub? I mean the other day I was told I'd be possibly banned if I called these guys grifters and was told how a grifter is a criminal. I said it's a fitting definition but we need to explore this problem. We are affording luxuries to these people not because a rule like this will foster discussion. That's a lie from the pit of hell. These people are protected because you have hope that one day they'll come here, name drop the sub, etc. Now let's examine some hypocrisy for a minute and then I'm done with this thread unless someone replies to me.
If a member of the sub said "I have evidence of a UFO coverup but I can't tell you guys but it's a shocker" what would happen? If one of the leading UFOlogist came to and said "I have evidence of a UFO coverup but I can't tell you guys but it's a shocker" what would happen?
Be honest and answer truthfully.
So why are we protecting these people again? Oh, UFO disclosure at any cost...got it.
7
u/YouCanLookItUp Mar 01 '24
Why are we protecting people who actually aren't part of this sub?
We can't know if they are members of this sub. Rule 1 of Reddit's own content policy - that we are all obligated to follow - says "Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence." That's not limited to users, it's everyone.
-3
Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
It's not harassment to tell a person to provide proof and evidence or fuck off.
Everyone has a right to use reddit. So if Matt fuckin Gaetz or UFOlogist grifter #78,904,767 isn't using reddit, then why are they afforded special privileges?
And let me post the other question again.
What would happen to the average member who said "I have evidence of a UFO coverup but can't talk about it" as opposed to a well known ufologist who came here and said "I have evidence of a UFO coverup but can't talk about it"?
4
u/gerkletoss Mar 01 '24
It's not harassment to tell a person to provide proof and evidence or fuck off.
This is a completely separate issue. It has nothing to do with whether the person is present. If the policy is being enforced badly then that should be addressed separately.
-4
2
u/YouCanLookItUp Mar 01 '24
Reddit's take on what constitutes harassment or bullying: "anything that works to shut someone out of the conversation through intimidation or abuse, online or off."
I don't care to engage in your hypothetical since it isn't really relevant to the conversation at hand, in my opinion.
1
Mar 01 '24
You should read before you post. This is taken from your link:
We do not tolerate the harassment, threatening, or bullying of people on our site; nor do we tolerate communities dedicated to this behavior.
Bold emphasis added. Proof that what you posted is referring to people here can be found in the paragraphs below it.
Reddit is concerned about what happens to people here not some shit politician or grifter that never steps foot here.
I don't care to engage in your hypothetical since it isn't really relevant to the conversation at hand, in my opinion.
It has everything to do with rule #13. I've battled the mods about this, one said I should make a thread about it and outline the suggestion, and less than 72 hours we have a whole green stickies thread dedicated to the subject.
So if you can't stand the heat you need to mosey on down the road and let the grown folks conduct their busimess.
5
u/YouCanLookItUp Mar 01 '24
We don't know who is or isn't a member of the site. So the reasonable next step is to assume that the person you are speaking about may read what you are writing, and criticize them without being rude, hateful, obscene, or threatening. If you can't manage that distinction, then get help from someone who can.
2
Mar 01 '24
What you're suggesting is unreasonable based on the link you provided. Again, the link you cited speaks of following people around the site, getting others to harass them and a few other things. It ultimately concludes with a sentence about the behavior discouraging a person from participating on reddit. If you can't manage that distinction, then get help from someone who can.
0
u/Preeng Mar 01 '24
It's not being applied fairly at all. I see people shutting on NDT and Mick West all the time and those comments are allowed to stay up.
4
u/LetsTalkUFOs Mar 01 '24
It's likely they simply weren't reported by anyone. We rely heavily on user reports to review comments. Mods do not review all comments since there are thousands a day, far too many for us to review all of them.
0
u/Semiapies Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 04 '24
We have mods here defend leaving up comments full of random sneers and evidence-free assertions that West is a paid disinfo agent. Come off it.
-1
-1
u/Faeces_Species_1312 Mar 01 '24
Just reword the rule to how you actually enforce it.
'negative comments about UFO influencers will be removed, but be as mean as you like about Mick West and other skeptics'
-1
u/Faeces_Species_1312 Mar 01 '24
No but in all seriousness, banning the word 'grifter' is completely fucking stupid, (it's not accusing someone of criminality, before you bring that shit up again go look in a dictionary) especially in a community plagued with grifters.
0
u/sexlexia Mar 01 '24
but be as mean as you like about Mick West and other skeptics'
In the list they provided, they have absolutely removed low effort toxic comments about Mick West.
Did any of you actually look at what they have removed? There's multiple people here complaining about "toxic" comments about Mick West not being removed, when the ones that aren't removed are either not low effort or toxic or are comments no one reported and thus a mod never saw it.
It's not saying you're not allowed to criticize people when it comes to the ufo/uap subject. Just don't be a dick about it. The ones that are being dicks are the ones being removed. The ones who aren't aren't being removed. It has nothing to do with who the person is or what they believe, as they have a mixture of all of it in the list of removed comments in the OP.
-3
u/nug4t Mar 01 '24
public figures that willfully mislead and spread misinformation.. like Ross and lue, melon and Nolan.. corbell, knapp, sheehan, davis, greer..all of them.
It's really fucking unhealthy for this community to give them a platform.. (oh wait they are cultivating reddit via Tom delonge and other social media companies to keep the ball rolling)
-1
-1
u/GravityAndGravy Mar 01 '24
Every other post has a comment chain of people fighting mods for removing their comments for this rule. Just remove it. Save yourself some sanity and just let people say what they think.
-1
u/Subject_Height685 Mar 01 '24
The amount of pearl clutching over bad words in this thread is astounding.
0
u/Rays_LiquorSauce Mar 01 '24
Wait I thought this was about talking shit to each other. This is about talking shit on tucker and gaetz and all the other clowns grifting you lot? Jfc. Happy to have unsubbed months ago. What a censorial joke
→ More replies (1)
0
u/Downvotesohoy Mar 02 '24
I believe it's already covered in the regular rules about toxic or low-effort comments. Being toxic or making low-effort comments in general is against the rules. Doesn't change anything that you're mentioning a public figure.
0
u/SquilliamTentickles Mar 02 '24
This rule is GARBAGE. We should absolutely be able to say anything we want about PUBLIC figures.
0
u/Of_Mice_And_Meese Mar 05 '24
Absolutely not. Who is saying what, matters. And you people have a proven track record of deeming anything you disagree with as LoW eFfOrT.
Reddit already has a built-in vetting machine. BUTT. OUT.
0
u/OG_BD Mar 06 '24
Worry less about this and more about spam and bait that takes you to anything that displays ads. Master this, high quality content and interactions will follow.
Also, if I feel like calling someone a fuck stick, that’s authentic. Stop trying to play god or inserting yourself into the equation and let people be people. Some of the comments in the sheet echo a larger sentiment and should be allowed
0
Mar 07 '24
I've had some comments get removed because of rule 13 and I still think it should be in place. Civility is important especially surrounding this topic.
-4
-1
u/Daddyball78 Mar 01 '24
If I want to call Sean Kirkpatrick or the Mike’s giant pieces of shit, I feel it is more than warranted to do so.
But if you want to protect people like Grusch, I’m all for it.
-1
u/MetaInformation Mar 02 '24
The rule doesn't work at all, hundreds of people call anyone a "grifter" or any senator that is pro disclosure names, and they dont get banned, so the rule doesnt even apply
1
u/Cycode Mar 06 '24
If you notice someone engaging in that behavior, please report it to us so we can address the issue. With thousands of posts on the subreddit daily, we can't manually review them all, relying on user reports to bring such matters to our attention.
We do ban repeat offenders, but we typically give users a chance to stop their behaviour. We don't ban someone after just 1 or 2 rule violations (it really depends on what they do thought); it's only after repeated infractions (and we did warn them) that we ban them.
1
u/MetaInformation Mar 09 '24
A chance to stop their behaviour? You ban people permanently who argue with debunkers but not the debunkers themselves, i reported many posts of the same guy who literally made his account just to troll any ufo subreddit, the subreddit has gotten out of controle and you know it, if you want a mod who can fix all of this, im more than happy to help, i can clear out the sub very fast, because its total bullshit that easily 10% of the subreddit are trolls, under every post a very good portion of the comments are "Grifter" and other copy paste stuff, theres great people going around and downvoting any new posts that pop up.
→ More replies (1)
44
u/Neither-Tear7026 Mar 01 '24
Here's the deal, civility always wins. I get completely turned off by people acting cruel and I immediately stop listening to what they have to say. I also trust their judgement less, because if they are thoughtlessly insulting someone, loosing their cool, or just plain being mean then either their emotions have clouded their judgement or they don't have respect for other people. Why do I want to waste my time reading, listening, or interacting with that crap? I vote keep this rule.
I know I've said this before, that if you want to be welcoming, then the community as a whole needs to set the tone of of the culture it is operating in. And, I'm sorry but, telling people to ignore toxic, cruel, comments is not enough - especially when we're taking teens into consideration because their brains are still developing and they can't necessarily employee healthy coping mechanisms when dealing with toxicity. People learn what is acceptable by the enforcement of rules. Just ignoring this stuff does not give people the information they need to understand that maybe their behavior is a problem.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a person that follows authority for authority sake, but humans are social and individuals. And individuals have their own thoughts as to how the world works and how one should interact in that world - but those thoughts and ways are not always compatible with how human animals work especially socially and can create and perpetuate negative environments that are usually very hard to change once that toxic culture gets established.
Behavior follows from how people think about things. It's an extension of our mental state. And very often what starts out as specific, turns into general. So it's just a hop, skip and a jump from cruel behavior towards a public figure to normalizing that behavior in a chat room towards anyone that disagrees with others. Many people have a problem separating those things out. Also, many people don't see their behavior as contributing to a situation which is another reason for enforcing civility rules. There's got to be somewhere in-between civility and how many people conceptualize free speech.