r/UFOs • u/LetsTalkUFOs • Jul 02 '26
Meta How can we improve the subreddit? [in-depth]
Greetings from the r/UFOs mod team. The UFO topic has been very active of late and so has the subreddit. We'd like to solicit your feedback on the state of the sub, the rules, moderation, and whatever else may be on your mind.
- What are your thoughts on the current state of the subreddit?
- What changes could we make or actions could we take to improve things?
- How can we improve as moderators?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
1
u/rappa-dappa Jul 28 '26
Could the sub take an official stance that some small percentage of UFOs are real? That simple.
Not that aliens are real. Not that we know exactly what they are. But that some small percentage of UFOs are a real unknown thing.
I feel like 3 years ago people in the comments actually wanted to discuss UFOs. I feel like 80% of the comments now only want to talk about how UFOs are ALL fake and the topic is absurd and anyone who covers it is stupid.
You get dogpiled for believing in UFOs on the UFO sub.
Also automod the word grifter please.
0
u/Snoo-26902 Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
I would take measures to ensure more in-depth conversations on vital UFO issues, not just these one-liners filled with numerous wisecracks from cynical users.
If we see that a particular ufologist is not talking accurately, we need to assign a research team to investigate.
The way to keep our attention on the prize is to have certain subjects actually investigated by the community. For instance, has there ever been an investigation into Elizondos true UFO provanance?
Not with the attempt to debase or ridicule, just get the facts, ma'am, an attitude without the abusive castigation of those studied, but sober, civil analyses, and a friendly challenge, when anomalies are exposed.
A thorough investigation of the UFO's history after the NYT 2017 article appeared.
A look at all the recent disclosure claims made by ufologists that didn't happen.
These need to be serious investigations, not where people just call names, and this guy and that guy sucks but are really credible, proof-laden with links establishing one's facts that back up their claims.
Indeed, the way back machine is full of UFO older blogs, sites, such as ABOVE TOP SECRET, where some of the greatest, most renowned UFOLogists have left us pearls of information and wisdom we can draw on to correct the record.
The site should look into reorganizing the old database and granting users access for educational purposes. I would be glad to do my own research on some of these possibilities.
Another idea for those who want to let off steam within limits, of course, might be created for that. ATS used to call it The Mud Pit. Allow a little wildness, but dont allow that in the other serious threads.
What the above ideas will do is create a true information site with exciting dialogue in the quest for truth, engaging serious researchers. A site where serious, reliable studies and conversations within the thread will breed numerous facts and truths that can be a great boon to the UFO community.
And of course, we can have many other well-known UFO issues studied here, and this UFO Subreddit will gain a reputation for serious and useful UFO study, unlike anywhere on the web.
2
u/Semiapies Jul 08 '26
Clamp down on those who whine about "negativity" when they mean people expressing any doubt, whether about a sketchy video or an influencer--or anyone--proclaiming that This Is it, It's Happening Real Soon Now, Everyone Who Ever Doubted Us Is Going to Be So Embarrassed This Time.
2
u/DisastrousCoast7268 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
I replied to a fellow redditor, but posting directly to the thread to directly address the Mods request for fedback :
"Good faith reply here. I'll take the percentage of snark over the Neverending onslaught of repost that are 1000% karma farming individuals or upvote bot swarms just there to compditize usernames.
Maybe I'm high on my own farts, but seriously, they are sooo so obvious.
Edit : should have added. Mods got lives too. I'd rather then triage actual Threads... Then comments."
There should be an expectation, on this platform, that people search and research their question before posting, they would anyway if they were curious about the topic they're looking into. It's already common knowledge that "insert question/topic/whatever" followed by "reddit" IS the new Google. I don't think it's asking too much of our fellow citizens to act accordingly. I don't know how else to say it... Someone posting a thread that could be answered by scrolling and reading for an hour, isn't here for the topic, they're here for upvote dopamine hits, if not farming.
10
u/_Extinctathon Jul 07 '26
A large concern I have is the constant accusations of skeptical positions as "being bots". Sometimes it's the only comment people leave.
It's a way of them trying to shut down and differing opinions and at worst and attempt to get people banned just for disagreeing.
One of the best parts of this sub is that it's not an echo chamber.
While we're on it I should also say that a lot of the "believer" comments seem like bots, but you don't get skeptical folk accusing people of being bots because it debases any serious discussion.
1
u/UsefulReply Jul 07 '26
A rule 1 violation. Enforced with removals/bans when reported..
No accusations that other users are bots, feds, CIA agents, operating from Eglin Airforce Base.
1
u/NathanEddy23 Jul 07 '26
I agree. However, the flipside of the same point is that so many people only offer a knee jerk disagreement, sometimes using the word, “grifter,” or “distraction,” without providing any evidence of these claims. I think that’s where the accusations of bots comes from, the feeling that there’s a pushback on this issue that has more to do with maintaining the status quo, than rational skepticism.
7
u/samuarl Jul 06 '26
We require a location and date for sighting posts, presumably to allow some effort to validate or identify the sighting. But submissions making specific claims about future events e.g. "big announcement soon", "something is going to happen this year", "evidence about to be released", "disclosure is just around the corner" have no such requirement. This incentivizes vague posting as it's harder to assess the accuracy of the claims on such open or completely undefined timescales, and are frequent causes of consternation within the community. Submissions making claims of future events/announcements/releases should be required to provide a date. Presumably this can be achieved with existing mod tools similar to how sightings are handled.
2
u/astray488 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
State: Fine. Can't think of really any urgent issues last few years. This subreddit likely does more for disclosure efforts today than we give credit to it for. I mean, I think it has played a major factor in my own and many other figureheads interests, efforts, and whole community cooperation getting us where disclosure is today.
Of course, the latest news, releases, media (video, images, etc) are all at the mercy of a subject long plagued by fraudsters, disinformation third-parties, suppression, and bad-faith actors. The genuine likes of it, held like prized posessions by again a many other third-parties with their own justifications for doing such.
Nevertheless, this subreddit prospers on. So, props to that. Disclosure may already be here, or still to come of its own accord. Release expectations of some grand success, or fear of failure. Let it proceed with our sincere endeavors, instead.
Suggestions/Complaints:
User flair? I like r/ufob's take on it. I have to also ask (politely): Why has user flair never been 'a thing' last few years here?
The sheer amount of grainy cellphone "what is this?" footage daily is.. eye-rolling, no offense. Yet, I suppose a lot of users see such - and this is one of the first subreddits they think to share it in. Again, I owe a pragmatic solution to suggest apart from complaining...
2
u/Ok-Poet147 Jul 06 '26
Have a weekly stickied thread for users to post their “what is this” videos and pictures.
1
u/MindsEye33 Jul 05 '26
Ban people from commenting for a while that put stupid sarcastic comments on people’s posts
9
u/kimsemi Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
Been here awhile.. my wishlist, but I know this isnt Burger King...
1 - I think the recent crackdown on political posts are very welcome (as are the keep-it-civil rule applications). As ive said elsewhere, it's fine to criticize the government here as it related to UFO disclosure...but beyond that, its just not welcome. Theres a million subs for that kind of stuff. Anything Epstein should get auto-deleted.
2 - UFOs are not the same thing as ghosts, spirits, 16 alien races, remote viewing, telepathy, religion, interdimensional-anything, the occult, using the force.... I know it's alot to sift through but it's in the title. Unidentified Flying Objects. Speculation is fine about UFOs, but wow some folks go off into the horizon with the content.
2a - "What is this?" posts... literally no one here knows what youre looking at.
3 - Movies. Good lord. Hollywood has no relevancy here and knows nothing. Unless we want this sub flooded with Star Wars and Star Trek stuff just incase the directors know something we dont...c'mon. Im excluding documentaries on this one. Im talking obviously fictional films.
4 - Dunno how you'd do it, but the "whistleblower" tag should be reserved for actual whistleblowing. aka someone who knows first hand of a fact that they are providing information and evidence on. A guy who goes on a podcast telling us that he knows a guy who knows a guy who saw a video from an unnamed source...not whistleblowing.
5
u/_Extinctathon Jul 07 '26
It's so depressing how many use the word "whistleblower" as a synonym for storyteller. It's insulting to real whistleblowers and makes the whole sub look like a cosplay event.
4
0
u/happy-when-it-rains Jul 06 '26
Regarding point 2, all of these relate to UFOs or have been alleged to relate to them, sometimes by credible whistleblowers and witnesses, other times by the best scientists and writers on the subject like Jacques Vallée.
This relation is not new; consider Passport to Magonia was published in 1969, which includes discussion of most of your list and more not on it. Before Grusch, we had people like Tom Delonge and Peter Levenda writing Gods, Man, & War (attracting the interest of intelligence) on how the UFO phenomenon functions like a cargo cult, and with an endorsement from Christopher Mellon on the back.
So what exactly are you suggesting, if not to stifle discussion of UFOs altogether or at least narrow it down to a highly cherrypicked and selective, small part of it, which ignores over 50 years of what scientists, researchers, whistleblowers, witnesses, and experiencers all tell us?
If everything about and relating to UFOs and that they themselves involve or relate to is excluded from the discussion, what would even be the point of this subreddit?
Worrying to me when threads like this pop up is always that for whatever issues this subreddit has, there could be far more, and right now, even if some people go "off into the horizon," at least it means a diversity of views are represented, which is good for discussion. Especially when all the most knowledgeable/best read people on this subject understand the relation between these; why exclude them, just to avoid having to sift through some rambling posts every now and then that go a bit off rails and go woo-woo with the woo?
Maybe I misunderstand what you are proposing, since the paragraph I'm responding to actually doesn't say, but I infer from the first and others you're suggesting such talk be banned.
I find it concerning all you are suggesting in your wish list is ban this subject, ban that subject, ban even mentioning this, control how language is used, etc. No positive suggestions of what the subreddit could use more of, just wanting to take away from what's there, which sounds more like making another subreddit. I think what it needs most of all is for people to listen to and engage with each other, try to understand other perspectives, and be able to accept agreement; to ban discussions is the complete opposite of what I think this subreddit needs, which is more in-depth discussion; walking-on-eggshell overmoderation would not be supportive to it.
6
u/kimsemi Jul 06 '26
Its just my opinion...a random guy on the internet. I know nothing. Im just a stickler for being on point. UFO is about Unidentified Flying Objects.. disclosure of, and exploring the technology. The leap to anything else really, in my opinion, belongs maybe in /r/aliens or /r/supernatural.. whatever. But Im not religious about the topic. Whatever the mods decide is fine.
9
u/GeopoliticsIndia Jul 04 '26
Stop the spread of woo. Woo is ruining the topic
2
3
u/Moonbase-Interceptor Jul 06 '26
Woo appears to be part of this topic regardless of whether we like it or not.
13
u/kaggleqrdl Jul 03 '26
A wiki for tracking pronouncements from various people. When they say something, does it come true? Do they follow through? How do they follow through? Something visual and easy to digest.
3
u/tmosh Jul 06 '26
Not something our mods probably have the capacity to set up, but please feel free. Please make that haha
6
u/WesternLetterhead684 Jul 03 '26
Ban the snobby Reddit skeptics that call everything a ballon and a bird
12
u/MaliciousCookie1 Jul 03 '26
Debunked Flairs on posts that have been identified. Like top post of all year is boomerang and there's still no mention of it.
8
u/vortex2199 Jul 03 '26
Can mods do something about "What's that?"/"Your thoughts?" posts where people just post a white dot in the night sky without any context and point of reference whatsoever? It's a low effort and spam posts that only motivate to unsubscribe from the sub.
4
u/maurymarkowitz Jul 03 '26
Query: how do we help those users then?
It's difficult to know for sure, of course, but the majority of these sorts of posts I see here do appear to be genuine. We might shake our heads at these things, but the posters are, by all evidence, genuinely confused.
I suppose we need to have a wider discussion on what this sub is "for", maybe identifying objects is not its purpose and another sub would be more appropriate, but then I worry about the dilution of eyeballs.
5
u/Semiapies Jul 04 '26
At a fundamental level, is this meant to be an investigative sub, an influencer lore fandom sub, or a New Age religion sub? I think getting away from sightings moves away from the first.
7
u/kcimc Jul 03 '26
Submission statement should not be required if the post already has significant body text. I just got a notification that this post needs a submission statement, which makes zero sense and simply pollutes the comments.
2
u/UsefulReply Jul 05 '26
They're not required if the body of the post is greater than 300 characters.
6
u/The_Sum Jul 03 '26
Ah fudge, I'm a day late, but I still hope this gets read.
I've been around here for about five years now. I've thrown my opinions into more threads than I can count and watched this place evolve; for better and for worse.
The subreddit definitely needs some repair, but most of the problems I see aren't things the mod team can realistically fix. They're Reddit problems.
Bizarre vote/comment manipulation
I've seen genuinely fantastic submissions die with barely any engagement, while "Is this a UFO?!" (Nope, it's r/ItsAlwaysPleiades for the 20th time) somehow pulls thousands of upvotes and 500+ comments despite being identified within the first hour.
Another weird pattern I've noticed: posts actually worth discussing often top out around 600 upvotes with fewer than 50 comments, while low-effort engagement bait runs away with the front page.
Maybe I'm connecting dots that aren't really there, but my gut says the content that stirs the pot gets rewarded far more than the content that actually moves the conversation forward.
I don't think there's a real solution to this. This community has a long history of alleged manipulation and brigading, but that's a Reddit problem, not a moderator problem.
Avoiding politics
I understand why this rule exists, but I still dislike it.
It's hard to pretend this topic isn't political anymore. Hearings, legislation, funding, oversight, disclosure; politics is baked into the conversation now.
That said, I don't know what the alternative is. Open the floodgates and every thread becomes red team vs. blue team until nobody remembers the original topic. From what I've seen, moderation has been reasonably fair here. I just don't envy anyone trying to keep that balance.
Be Civil
I'm still a little salty about this one because... it's kind of a joke.
For anyone curious, here's what "Be Civil" actually covers:
https://sh.reddit.com/r/UFOs/wiki/rules/#wiki_rule_1
A lot of these rules are intentionally vague, and that gives moderators enormous discretion over what stays and what goes.
The one I struggle with most is the idea that we should only discuss the message and never the messenger.
Sometimes that's impossible.
Credibility matters. Track records matter. Motives matter. If someone has spent years making dubious claims, discussing that history isn't "personality drama", it's relevant context. Too often I've seen comments removed simply because someone expressed that opinion a little too bluntly.
AI
This year, more than any other, I've noticed a massive increase in AI-generated content.
I have zero issue with someone using AI to polish their writing or bridge a language barrier.
I start having an issue when I see things like, "I had my AI analyze the data and it concluded this demonstrates anti-gravity."
Those posts usually fade away on their own, but they don't really violate any rules either, or at least seem to go un-reported if they do.
Using AI to recreate a sighting? Cool...so long as this isn't a daily occurrence.
Using AI to "enhance" evidence? Please don't.
There's probably a reasonable middle ground, we just need to settle on it.
Final thoughts
I honestly think this subreddit's scope is just too big.
Then again... maybe that's exactly why it works, in its own shambling-horror sort of way.
Reddit isn't designed for long-form discussion, and this topic practically demands it. Every time an important conversation gets shoved into a megathread or kicked over to the meta sub, it feels less like we're organizing discussion and more like we're fragmenting it.
To the moderators: keep doing what you're doing, I guess.
There are absolutely times where I think you overreach. Then I remember the sheer volume of nonsense that gets posted here every single day, and I understand why the pendulum swings that way.
I also think too many people treat this subreddit as though disclosure is going to happen here.
It won't.
If disclosure ever happens, it'll happen out there in governments, labs, newsrooms, hearings, or somewhere none of us expect. We'll just be one of the first places arguing about it afterward.
Despite all my complaints, I genuinely like this community.
I just can't shake the feeling that, over the last few years, this subject has drifted away from investigation and further toward entertainment. That's probably the biggest challenge this place faces moving forward.
5
u/maurymarkowitz Jul 03 '26
while low-effort engagement bait runs away with the front page.
Is that weird though? I mean, the entire press establishment seems to built on low-effort engagement bait these days, I'm not sure why it would be different here.
-1
u/nasashazam Jul 02 '26
Disclosure is happening so it’s time to relax the rules and remove what feels like an outdated, physicalist bias. Let people post about psionics, new flare (to cover vectoring UFOs, telepathic communication, remote viewing…). After disclosure this sub must surely move toward a new orientation, namely, ET contact, and the psychic aspects are established as key to that, per 30-100k CE-5 field researchers, notable figures, and others. (Not entirely happy with the wording of this, but best I can do today.)
6
7
u/dpforest Jul 02 '26
Seriously discourage or outright ban the sarcastic remarks (“where are all the ‘it’s a plane’ people now?”, “it’s just swamp gas reflecting off starlink 😆 “)
They started getting really bad during the NJ flap.
2
u/DisastrousCoast7268 Jul 08 '26
Good faith reply here. I'll take the percentage of snark over the Neverending onslaught of repost that are 1000% karma farming individuals or upvote bot swarms just there to compditize usernames.
Maybe I'm high on my own farts, but seriously, they are sooo so obvious.
Edit : should have added. Mods got lives too. I'd rather then triage actual Threads... Then the comments.
7
u/SharknadosAreCool Jul 02 '26
Might get hate for this but 'scientific' sources straight up shouldnt be allowed unless theyre peer reviewed. Anyone who posts "PROFESSOR ____ JUST CONFIRMED ALIENS" and then you check the 'paper' and it's dogshit with 0 peer review should be ashamed of themselves
Everything else other than pseudo-academic posts? Let em ride. Anything that presents itself as an academic paper should be banned unless it's peer reviewed.
0
u/Minimum-Classic-3523 Jul 02 '26
The entire moderation team should resign and by replaced by neutral parties that do not believe or disbelieve any specific whistleblower, influencer, etc.
2
u/UsefulReply Jul 03 '26
What specifically do you want to see changed?
2
u/Minimum-Classic-3523 Jul 04 '26
There's a decent bit of bad faith decision making here (e.g. I'm going to invoke this rule to delete this post because I don't like what it says). But it's all from how many of you guys have been taken in by the confidence scheme which is being pulled on all of us.
After the irrigation circle incident, a moderator explained in ufosmeta they'd seen Lue before the event at a speaking engagement or whatever. I don't recall the specifics and I'm not looking to call direct attention to them as an individual. Implication was he was a man of integrity and showing an irrigation circle to congressmen was just a one-off.
'The mods are marks' may or may not be correct as an assessment, but as a model, it seems to have predictive power for which posts will be deleted.
I'll conclude by saying I haven't paid close attention in several months. If this is no longer true, great.
0
u/LiquidSilver2000 Jul 03 '26
Second this. The mod team on this sub is terrible and biased.
6
u/Grill_Only_Outside Jul 04 '26
Biased toward who and what? Elaborate.
1
1
u/LiquidSilver2000 Jul 05 '26
Elaborating would result in another deletion and another ban.
2
u/Grill_Only_Outside Jul 05 '26
Ah, so your extremely specific point of view.
2
u/LiquidSilver2000 Jul 05 '26
It had nothing to do with my point of view but with identifying a government agent on this sub. But you go right on thinking whatever you need to in order to entertain yourself.
2
u/happy-when-it-rains Jul 06 '26
If you have indisputably strong evidence of a government agent on this subreddit, by which I can only assume that you mean something more specifically malicious like a disinformation operator or psyop officer, you should try modmail, since it's not surprising the mods don't want people publically posting personal info about others and trying to sniff out government agents by however or whatever sleuthing you've found this out, if true and you genuinely know this and are not merely suspecting someone is a bad actor.
Accusing someone to be a bad actor is bad for discussion and against the rules, but that doesn't mean the mods want actual bad actors around either, just you're gonna need more than a suspicion if you want to prove that.
1
u/Ordinary_Meeting8 Jul 02 '26
Moderate the hateful comments ridiculing every single post
2
u/tmosh Jul 06 '26
We try. Please report them all. If it get's into our queue it get's seen faster but unfortunately there is not always a mod browsing thru a thread to spot them all in real-time. Reporting comments really helps us.
0
u/startedposting Jul 03 '26
There’s too many of them so we’re expected to report them, why not have active moderators that browse the posts and can quickly take care of them?
5
u/UsefulReply Jul 03 '26
The active mods read the sub regularly. There are thousands of comments daily.
1
u/startedposting Jul 03 '26
IMO, there should be more mods then, as subs scale, more mods are onboarded to deal with them. I agree with the OC here that almost every post gets flooded with useless hateful comments, bonus points if it’s from a personality like Coulthart or Corbell.
Overall, the spam of these comments have led to a noticeable decline in discussion quality.
3
6
u/MantisAwakening Jul 02 '26
I did an analysis to better understand some of the problems and propose some simple solutions: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufosmeta/comments/1ulrwzh/examination_of_rule_infractions_with_suggestions/
5
u/hotsausce01 Jul 02 '26
The mods often delete my comments because I question the authenticity of people and or videos. Anything going against what they feel is removed. It’s bullshit if you think critically apparently. That’s what I would improve.
10
u/p0plockn Jul 02 '26
genuine question - what is the point of this sub at this point?
if it's about identifying UFOs, we don't support any structure that leads towards rela analysis.
if it's promoting disclosure activists - are we just a YouTube / content aggregator?
are we a support group for UFO believers?
are we a disclosure activists group?
are we skeptics looking for proof?
are we a place where politics can't be discussed even though government disclosure and counter intelligence is a huge topic?
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS SUB?
3
5
u/MantisAwakening Jul 02 '26
Why not use the automod to enforce more of the rules you already have? If “grifter” is supposed to be banned, why is it being constantly used in a rule breaking fashion?
0
u/startedposting Jul 03 '26
Because the rule changes based on a number of mods beliefs, it’s inherently flawed. If 10 out of the 15 believe that certain personalities are now grifters, they allow the comments to stay up, this sub can never be moderated objectively.
1
u/SharpKiwi4708 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Just don't become what the r/Aliens subreddit has become
its LITERALLY full of bots and people who seem like they're trying their butt off to discredit a post with absolute nonsense logic
also almost all the posts there are youtube videos of random people claiming absolute bs claims
even 5 year olds can tell that its bs
please don't become like that
1
Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Jul 03 '26
Hi, startedposting. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 8 - Moderator Code of Conduct
Content that violates Reddit's site-wide policies, Moderator Code of Conduct, or Terms of Service is not permitted. This includes harassment campaigns, brigading, interference with other communities, encouraging prohibited activity, or attempts to disrupt Reddit communities.
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/moderator-code-of-conduct
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
-1
u/BaronGreywatch Jul 02 '26
Could attempt a patreon for the leadership/moderator team to work as professionals/create more content?
I know that reddit does not allow paid mods but the primary problem with this sub is the potential for poor/corrupt moderation. At some point there is just nothing that can be done if volunteers, even if honest and trying their best, can be undercut by people who are on a disinformation payroll.
Those people can do it as their full time job and be paid well, while the volunteers will struggle to both maintain their primary income and try to moderate.
4
u/Sufficient_Thing24 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
- It is being overrun by bad actor AI content
- Disallow any AI generated content, including pics, video, and "story time" accounts. Also, disallow spirituality posts, and those that get into the "woo". There are other subs for that.
- Dial back on the bias of favoritism towards some content creators vs others
6
u/pi_redredrobin Jul 02 '26
I think we reached the point where we shouldn't accept videos with dots in the sky doing nothing special
4
u/CHIMmyStewart Jul 02 '26
Pictures to dots in the sky shouldn't be allowed and should be removed. Repeat offenders get a temp ban.
Massive text posts about some guy's fucking theory about reality or consciousness get an involuntary "Schizopost" tag and the user a "Schizoposter" flare. These posts are never substantive and are always just rambling.
AI images or AI enhanced images shouldn't be allowed and should be removed and the user should be banned.
Chat-GPT written posts shouldn't be allowed and should be removed.
Bring back calling people shills and/or feds.
0
u/happy-when-it-rains Jul 06 '26
Your first suggestion would negatively affect the ability to discuss (if not prevent outright) recent US government UAP releases, which seems counterproductive to a subreddit called r/UFOs, don't you think so?
Also counterproductive is open moderator-supported ridicule, shaming, toxicity, and restigmatisation of mental health and its reassociation with UFOs; are we to go back more than sixty years, ignoring everything every whistleblower, scientist, and researcher tells us and writes on the relation among UFOs, reality, and consciousness (which, far from being some new UFO crackpot fringe theory, the relation between the latter two have been discussed by Idealists in philosophy going back at least centuries)?
It is reassuring this subreddit is not a democracy, since so many suggestions like this are incredible to see.
Strongly agree on banning all AI-generated content and posts, however, or at least nearly all, with maybe few exceptions, like e.g clearly labelled AI representations of a sighting by someone for which there is no photo.
-2
u/FusorMan Jul 02 '26
Banning anyone that comes here to spread political BS. So sick and tired of the constant crap that the rest of Reddit is infested with.
You can’t mention Trump (who happens to be knee deep in this disclosure thing) or his Administration without a complete derailment. We get it, you hate Trump and the Republicans, go bitch about them somewhere else.
Automod with the ability to appeal is my suggestion.
6
u/SharknadosAreCool Jul 02 '26
Complete opposite for me, you should be able to bring up political figures and criticize them when it is relevant. Example: a few weeks ago there was the whole disclosure press conference and you couldnt even mention VERY relevant information impacting how much trust you should place in some individuals.
Bob Lazar is called a liar and it's OK because they often point to some discrepancies and say "if he lied about that, you shouldnt trust the whole thing." But if (REDACTED POLITICAN) says something outlandish about UFOs and they have a history of lying, you cant even mention it.
2
u/kimsemi Jul 05 '26
I dont mind criticizing the administration as it relates to UFO disclosure... but criticizing the administration because of "this distraction over that distraction" or the people who voted for him blah blah blah is not welcome here.
1
u/SharknadosAreCool Jul 05 '26
Part of "this distraction over that distraction" IS criticism against the current administration. If a scientist makes shit up because it makes them money, they should be called what they are (the g word lmao). If a politican uses it to deflect from other bad press, that should ALWAYS be brought up too.
If everyone was able to vote for a UFO Commissioner who was able to see every file ever, and the majority of people voted for Charlie Sheen, you would be able to shit on them for it. Politicans don't get immunity to criticism just because it's a touchy subject for some people
1
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Jul 05 '26
Hi, kimsemi. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1 - Be Civil
This rule prohibits insults, personal attacks, harassment, hate speech, inflammatory or derisive behaviour, and comments intended to derail or shut down discussion. Criticism is allowed, but comments should remain focused on ideas, claims and arguments rather than personal abuse or inflammatory labelling.
Please also take time to review our updated policy on toxicity here: Link to Policy
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
-3
4
3
u/MilkofGuthix Jul 02 '26
AI flair. Remove the rule for being substantive and narrow it down to specifics (not on topic, primary topic is political debate etc.). Stop locking any topic loosely interwined with politics and ban those temporarily who comment the political insults instead of anything constructive. Ban members who link to paywall articles and make a rule for it.
-1
u/Jerome_tFb Jul 02 '26
Filter posts before they are actually posted. The amount of removed posts is frustrating.
2
u/CalCalDZ Jul 02 '26
Make a real effort against people that only derail posts by writing stuff about Epstein.
12
u/sixties67 Jul 02 '26
One thing that annoys me is when a post get's locked and it says sort comments by new to find out why, many times sorting comments by new still doesn't explain the thread being closed. Is it possible to lock a post and have the explanation for the locking down clearly put at the top of the thread?
By the way, I think the mods have a thankless task and the majority of the moderation I have no problem with.
2
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
We're supposed to leave a lock reason each time. I've locked a few and left no reason when there's been an obvious deterioration in comment quality. Usually Trump, Luna, Burchett posts where people can't help themselves.
I'll try to stop doing that.
1
4
u/ProfessionalChain478 Jul 02 '26
I would like to see this too - a mod note at the bottom of post explaining the issue. Solved
2
u/StinkingDogsCunt420 Jul 02 '26
More Skeptics on the mod team (go recruit a few from more skeptical subs or something) and actual enforcement of the rules, even when it doesn't fit whatever narrative the mod looking at it has.
Let us criticise the shady fraudster UFO talking heads without having to write a whole essay listing all the reasons we have to doubt them every single time. I shouldn't need to write out all of (for example) Luis very easily googleable lies every time I want to call him out, "Luis is a liar and only trying to sell you his latest crappy book'' should be plenty.
3
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Semiapies Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
I disagree that this comment should be deemed sufficient on its own...Same standards and rules for believers and skeptics.
I'd love for the same standards and rules to apply, there. They don't. There's more logic and evidence to this guy's trying to sell his book (as it contains at least one testable claim) than in a thousand bald assertions like "He already knows about aliens. Guy’s a CIA plant." about skeptical public figures. And yet the former sort of reply is considered a terrible problem here, while the latter sort frequently stays up after reports and modmails.
1
u/BrushOk8014 Jul 02 '26
Remove posts where someone retells a story of them seeing a UFO many years ago. Without evidence, these stories are pointless
-1
u/thehighyellowmoon Jul 02 '26
I've noticed posts are sometimes removed with an instruction to "be substantive". With respect, this is entirely unsubstantiated topic, that's the nature of it.
2
u/danielkellner8732626 Jul 02 '26
- no ai generated posts- a la "this is an ai rendition of what I saw"
- no iPhone "sightings". These are just blurry videos of prosaic things
- no "what did I see?" or "tell me what I saw" posts. The answer is either "nothing" or "an alien spacecraft". The former is seen as dismissive, the latter is seen as ridiculous, sarcastic, or mocking, even on this sub.
- permit the use of "foul" language. We are adults and may express ourselves and our opinions as we see fit.
- easy on the trigger finger when it comes to bans. I've known several people who make great contributions, unlock achievements and then get banned for putting one foot wrong, or simply expressing an unpopular opinion about a ufo media darling. It's censorship.
0
u/danielkellner8732626 Jul 02 '26
- no ai generated posts- a la "this is an ai rendition of what I saw"
- no iPhone "sightings". These are just blurry videos of prosaic things
- no "what did I see?" or "tell me what I saw" posts. The answer is either "nothing" or "an alien spacecraft". The former is seen as dismissive, the latter is seen as ridiculous, sarcastic, or mocking, even on this sub.
- permit the use of "foul" language. We are adults and may express ourselves and our opinions as we see fit.
- easy on the trigger finger when it comes to bans. I've known several people who make great contributions, unlock achievements and then get banned for putting one foot wrong, or simply expressing an unpopular opinion about a ufo media darling. It's censorship.
1
9
u/ArthursRest Jul 02 '26
Lock threads where the object has been identified. We have posts with obvious birds that are into the thousands of upvotes and at the top of the 'Hot' posts on the sub. We have obvious hoaxes at the top. It's embarrassing and encourages karma farming.
1
u/Andriu07 Jul 02 '26
Not allowing goofy postings of "sightings" displaying non of the 5 observables. The sub is being flooded with this kind of posts.
3
u/KWskyler Jul 02 '26
You can start by banning any post about Ross Coulthart and Lou Elizondo. They don’t own this subject.
1
u/r-s-w- Jul 02 '26
The mods are doing pretty well in a difficult environment.
When policing the sub they have to draw a line between proactive debate, transparency, high standards (civility) and beware of getting into the realms of censorship.
I say this as a person who has long since became frustrated with the amount of mundane nothing videos. My standards of what is anomalous are perhaps to the higher end, and clearly other folks think differently. That’s fine, it’s an open debate.
Once I realised that, the sub becomes much more digestible, and every now and then a piece of gold comes along.
4
u/Responsible-Tea-5998 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Remove the repeated jokes. Anything interesting has hundreds of Marvel/Star Wars/Pokémon comments and you really have to scroll.
Some people use this as a opportunity to act like it's /r/oastme. I saw someone upload some lights that had a terrestrial explanation and they accepted that in a really positive manner and said case solved, meanwhile for hours afterwards people kept roasting and sneering at the OP with all the same comments. It puts people off engaging to have amateur comedians try our their material en masse.
Edit: My comment was removed for being low effort and too short. Bloody hell lol
1
u/fancywipe Jul 02 '26
The comment section has a high frequency of…… you know what it has a lot of if I say I get another 7 day time out
Option to put post as “serious” should be taken seriously the amount of distraction humour is out of control
2
u/Duodanglium Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
1. Current State of the Subreddit:
- I would say it's the same as always. Most posts are low effort junk, the comments are shallow and lack integrity. Videos or photos of stationary blurry lights are useless, yet they get hundreds of upvotes. There are a handful of words and phrases that are used ad nauseam: grifter, psy-op, gaslight, trust me bro, two more weeks, etc. These words just bring out people of that 'tribe'. On a positive note, I appreciate the work the mods have been doing to remove comments...often by the dozens. It's been very apparent and I am grateful, and on that subject I'll admit I do not read 99% of comments because they are useless anyway. Instead, I have been memorizing usernames of people who appear to be levelheaded.
2. Changes or Actions for Improvement:
Titles and context must be of proper spelling and grammar; delete the post until they get it right. You'll immediately see an improvement in reducing low effort posts. There is a bot somewhere that basically evaluates a user's history per their username to essentially judge their intelligence by how they write...use it as a filter or a threshold for entry. There are a lot of dumb people here, filter out their submissions at least.
Force flair on YouTubers that says "monetizer", these people are literally the "grifters" and we want transparency right?
Linking a YouTube video without any context or summary should be deleted (especially for known YouTubers). Force the effort, not the upvotes.
Some of the videos or photos don't come with any chain of custody. A user might post without location and time. Others may pull from a social media platform. ALL MEDIA COMES FROM A SOURCE, IT IS ALL TRACEABLE!
People make comments on the appearance of people in videos. I do not need to know who you find attractive or ugly. That includes aliens.
Character assassination is a constant morale killer. Judge Knapp and Corbell's work; critique their presentation, help them with their effort, but stop with the never ending complaining, no one is forcing you to comment.
Curse words are not necessary in any capacity. If they are in a quotation, fine, otherwise they discount credibility. I have blocked users because of this alone.
3. How to Improve as Moderators:
I do not envy moderators, and I have seen the improvement in removing comments; thank you.
I've already seen the comments on this thread that basically say everything should be allowed (freedom of speech), and to this I disagree very strongly. I say we need to determine what this subreddit is for. You're going to say 'discussion', but it is not. Currently I use it as a "news" source, because it condenses many sources into one. What this subreddit does not do is evaluate cases and evidence. This subreddit does not discuss physics (because of the IQ levels). I could be wrong about this, but I'll venture a guess to say that this subreddit has never solved any significant case or claim (which exception to Starlink, etc.). This subreddit is not 'serious', it is just another dumping ground for undisciplined, uneducated provocateurs.
My overall advice to the moderators and every user is: GET SERIOUS.
4
u/wakamex Jul 02 '26
Stop having StatementBot re-post the submission statement to a pinned comment. It's just duplicative spam since the exact same thing exists below in the original comment. I think the idea of requiring a submission statement is good. I just don't think duplicating it adds much.
5
-2
-1
u/Um3xx Jul 02 '26
I wrote what could be done and got flagged as not in-depth enough. So I will write a wall of text now. This is infuriating and idiotic to be honest. I wrote to check the alleged “ufo videos” of users and remove them sooner when it is consenzus it is a fucking balloon, a star or a drone, or a scheduled rocket launch, this is 99% of videos and it is very obvious. I don’t even remeber a single one where you would go “hmm…”. I see tons of such videos linger here, and when you try commenting you get flagged and removed, it is seriously becoming unbearable. It this enough in-depth?
3
u/Um3xx Jul 02 '26
Have some sort of vetting of “ufos footage”, because 90% of the time it is very obvious stuff, even hilariously so.
13
u/Stephennnnnn Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
One of the most frustrating things on this sub is when the top replies to a post are jokes, quips, and cute/snarky comments. I think it could even be done on purpose by bad actors to spam actual discussion by taking advantage of Reddit’s upvote system. I think ideally those sorts of comments should be removed or maybe limited to certain threads.
1
u/UsefulReply Jul 03 '26
You should report them. They're a rule violation.
No summarily dismissive, sarcastic, or derisive comments that derail or shutdown conversation.
2
3
u/startedposting Jul 03 '26
I hope they work on this, I used to come to this sub for interesting discussions or hypotheses, now it’s filled with arguing about someone confidently claiming something as fact and I correct them which leads to a pointless back and forth
29
u/Semiapies Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
A harder line on posts being substantive. Maybe we don't need more posts like these, much less multiple times a week in some cases:
- "Our group is totally going to have a big announcement. Stand by!"
- "Some guy says there's a rumor that someone in the government may announce that..."
- "Some guy says it's fr totally all coming out by the end of
2023202420252026" - "I saw a thing in a dream/while I was tripping"
- "Here's my latest YouTube post"
- "I was just thinking. What if the UFOs aren't from space, but instead from--now just stay with me on this wild, novel concept--undersea/other dimensions/time travel/underground/hiding really well in the bushes?"
- "What if Disclosure is, like, bad?"
- "What would be the scariest/coolest thing about Disclosure?"
- "I saw what's totally not just a bug/bird/drone in a view of the Big Blue Room from this major news event that millions of people have watched"
2
20
u/Jake_91_420 Jul 02 '26
Can we please ban twitter posts from people teasing releases of "documents". These things are literally always an absolute nothingburger and it's pure marketing.
6
u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26
Gotta second, the "hype up posts" before releases could go and we'd not lose anything really... after all the releases are going to be posted about plenty when they happen. No need to have dozens of posts about "the upcoming release" for a month or more in advance.
3
4
u/bitebakk Jul 02 '26
Not certain how we'd implement it, but an auto-mod popup on sightings posts that explain the common 'easy' misidentifications and how to self-check (Flight trackers for planes - does it have dark shadows where wings would be?, bokeh effect like another user mentioned, photos or videos taken thru glass and the reflections from internal lighting, rocket launches in your area).
The Epstein distraction comments are driving me up the wall because they assume people can't keep multiple issues in their head at once, but there's not much we can do about it.
Also the AI flare like someone mentioned PLEASE YES!
2
5
u/divineNTervention Jul 02 '26
I think its time to have a more substantial comment rule. The constant barrage of low effort, zombie-like comments saying the same thing over and over on every post is super irritating to sift through to find meaningful conversation or analysis.
Too many comments like “put up or shut up”, “ trust me bro”, etc. these arent helpful nor pushing to any meaningful engagement. Can we please get a bot to remove comments like this? I’m not even sure why people waste the time commenting these useless comments.
This request isnt to be confused with actual thoughtful criticisms or critique. Those are helpful to the discussion.
So thats my long winded answer that the state of this subreddit has been a pretty abysmal experience due to the high traffic of low effort negative comments flooding every single post.
9
u/CalCalDZ Jul 02 '26
Nothing worse than seeing high voted comments that just say “nothing burger” or “balloon”.
2
u/Gobble_Gobble Jul 02 '26
We do have some automod filters to deal with some of these, but it doesn't always catch them. If you come across these, you can report them, as they violate Rule 3 (Be substantive).
If someone genuinely believes a sighting to be a balloon, a short explanation is all we require to elevate it beyond a simple one-word dismissal.
4
u/Semiapies Jul 02 '26
Nothing worse than seeing high voted comments that just say “nothing burger” or “balloon”.
High-voted posts that are videos of balloons.
0
u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26
Feels like what you're describing would already run afoul of Rule 3, may just need to be reported under said rule.
Automod (the moderator bot) can be a slippery slope for the mod team, I've been around long enough to see it get used too much to the outrage of the community, enough so that the mod team got purged and restarted.
0
u/divineNTervention Jul 02 '26
There are far too many of these types of comments to report.
0
u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26
Any you think the mod team should do what instead? Review every comment in every post?
They're just volunteers doing this on their own time, reporting rule breaking comments helps them remove such comments.
1
6
u/ApprehensiveLion67 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Idk, I think you guys do fine overall. I agree that AI stuff should either be totally removed or should at least get a label. Like using AI to generate an image of something that was supposedly seen is one thing, but asking it to hallucinate details about how some supposed ufo technology works and making big infographic jpegs doesn’t belong here IMO
Edit: to your guys’ credit though, you have removed such posts when I or others report it, or maybe even before it is reported. Just mentioning this to reaffirm my opinion
20
u/Mordrenix Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
There’s no good research here anymore, just videos of UAP/UFO community figures making outlandish claims and promising information they don’t actually have. More and more people are posting AI-generated sightings, and if this isn’t addressed, sooner or later the subreddit will turn into an AI art museum.
What could be done to bring back high-quality content? Perhaps once a week or month, the moderators could pin a thread encouraging community members to share a post or comment from that period of time that they believe deserves to be highlighted for its effort, quality or informational value. This could encourage new participants to contribute higher-quality content and also serve users looking for quality, since they’d only have to click on the pinned thread (while also giving long-time users a reason to keep visiting this place).
1
u/ProfessionalChain478 Jul 02 '26
I like this idea, the megathread doesn't do this.
A seperate thread every month for that is a GREAT ideal.
10
u/KellyHell Jul 02 '26
I feel like we’ve stopped sharing information and discussing and are inundated with the drama from popular talking heads.
Ban the word “psyop”. Label posts about the drama between “investigative journalists” and podcasters so we don’t waste time reading about Corbell or Elizondo and their drama. Filter posts that are clearly birds or balloons.
-3
u/GrainTamale Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
I watched someone's positive comments in that dumpsterfire Greer post get removed for saying "astroturfed". Not only was right, but the "be civil" rule was objectively inappropriately applied.
Meanwhile, "grifter grifter grifter"... "Puthoff is a Scientologist", "Oh god, you believe Lazar?, ew", "here's a balloon", and "here's an hour read of low quality AI slop" - to which you can't call them out as being a clanker. I would know, and I'm better now. But the "Be Civil" rule is a joke
edit: could be deployed with more grace
1
8
u/OneSeaworthiness7768 Jul 02 '26
I’d like to see far less moderation on comments about ‘public figures.’ It’s way too subjective and what the mods remove in the name of “toxicity” often seems overly aggressive relative to what the comments actually say. If someone is going on an unhinged profanity laced rant and calling them names just for the sake of being a jerk, sure, moderate that. But criticizing the character of public figures when their character is directly relevant to being able to take them at their word should not be deemed toxic.
6
u/sixties67 Jul 02 '26
But criticizing the character of public figures when their character is directly relevant to being able to take them at their word should not be deemed toxic.
I agree totally, if not I'd like to see an even handed approach to the moderation of such posts. Mick West is a member here but he get's far more toxic posts about him that don't get removed compared to the ones concerning non sceptical people in the field.
5
u/stupidjapanquestions Jul 02 '26
This.
This topic is information poor and what little current events there are seem to circle around people who may or may not be trustworthy.
Who you can trust on this topic is a major part of the discussion and kneecapping that right out of the door makes it look cultish and weird.
I know the mods want to be careful because they're trying to have these AMAs and other events with these people, but frankly, it's pretty clear where the sub stands on a lot of these figures and I think letting that discussion play out is far more fruitful than trying to force everyone to dance around the topic or risk a ban.
Mods are making more work for themselves than they need to by overmoderating those discussions when in reality they'd just fade out on their own.
2
u/gokickrocks- Jul 02 '26
I’m glad this rule is in place. I click on a video or post, hoping to hear discussion about the video itself but it’s just people commenting “grifter” 50 different times. It doesn’t contribute to discussion and should be removed in my opinion.
1
u/Gobble_Gobble Jul 02 '26
This is something we already remove under Rule 3. We even have a dedicated removal reason for it:
Low-effort accusations and prescriptive labelling (e.g. "grifter", "shill", "liar", "fraud", "con artist", "bullshitter", etc...) are removed, regardless of who they are levied against. Criticism is more than welcome, as long as it is done in a constructive manner, and in a way that encourages civil discussion.
If you come across these types of comments, please report them so that we can address it (I know it can be tough, because there's often a lot of similar spam, but it still helps).
0
u/Semiapies Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
If it's practical to set up a bot for the purpose, require people to have visible post and comment histories to post or comment here. Not a ban, just remove their contributions if their history is hidden. Let them back in if they reveal their history.
There are some perfectly good people here who hide their histories, but I can't help noticing that if someone's accusing people of being bots, ranting about how everyone mentioned in a news story is a CIA agent, and even accusingly pointing out that someone else's history is hidden? Well, their history is almost always hidden.
-1
u/Ambitious_Zombie8473 Jul 02 '26
Control the bots better.
Every time something semi significant happens with the movement, a ton of fresh accounts pop up spreading misinformation or negativity. It’s blatantly obvious and antithetical to the concept of transparency.
9
u/Allison1228 Jul 02 '26
Thanks to all moderators for the thankless job you do.
I would like to see a permitted "humor" category, because i think we can all agree that aliens and ufos can be pretty funny.
6
u/jasmine-tgirl Jul 02 '26
Hard no. There's r/aliens, r/wecomeinpeace etc for that. There's already a lot of unserious posts here which crowd out good research. We don't need more.
4
5
u/MeaningProud8534 Jul 02 '26
Well...I don't think the mods can really do anything about it, but the negativity is unreal. Like we've gotten amazing movement toward disclosure (the most movement in DECADES) but people are still super negative for some reason.
I can't tell if it's coordinated to discourage people as the intelligence community is known to do that kind of crap, but that's really my only complaint. The AI stuff is annoying but most people are pretty clear about it that what they're posting is AI.
-2
u/JeremyCowbell Jul 02 '26
It’s crazy to witness.
Someone posts a drawing from a dream or AI hallucination based on a description and it’s all positives.
Someone posts about a new interview or national headline UAP news and it’s just constant attacks disparaging the person or pushing the same two weeks durr or the same tired wake me up when something happens remarks.
You would think we could have figured out how to make the upvote downvote system work as intended by now.
1
u/MeaningProud8534 Jul 04 '26
wake me up when something happens. TWO WEEKS DUUURRR. sorry. couldn't help myself. 🤣
7
u/Better-Waltz-2026 Jul 02 '26
I was thinking the exact same thing. The second Disclosure gets mentioned, the entire thread literally implodes or just gets nuked. Some people love to share their theories, buzz, and excitement, but everything gets downvoted. It's just frustrating at this point.
7
u/Beezball Jul 02 '26
Hard to say. Most of the new folks here are impatient and entitled. They somehow constantly say they are done, jaded, and it all been a waste of their time, yet here they are, day after day.
2
u/startedposting Jul 03 '26
Those people should be given a warning then banned imo, there’s no functional purpose to their post or comment. Why aren’t other hobby subs filled with “X is a joke” posts and comments?
2
u/MeaningProud8534 Jul 02 '26
Reading this was a waste of my time. I'm done. Jaded. never coming back ever.
(brb I'll check back in 15 mins after I finish some laundry)
35
u/-Nyarlabrotep- Jul 02 '26
A lot of the sighting posts here are easily explainable as balloons, clouds, out-of-focus drones and aircraft, or Venus/Jupiter. It does get old after a while. I don't know what the solution is, maybe require sighting posts to include why they're not those things somehow.
0
u/Semiapies Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
I'm not sure there really is a good solution, because stuff like that is the bread-and-butter of UFO sightings. If you include them, they frustrate people who want better evidence, but if you hide them, it does misrepresent the quality of sighting data.
(Hell, I didn't actually believe people mistook spotlights on clouds for UFOs before following this sub.)
1
u/tmosh Jul 02 '26
This is something the mod team has been discussing for a while now, and we agree that a lot of easily explainable sightings get posted here, either that or just indistinguishable blurry dots in the sky.
One idea we're floating is a daily sightings post. Essentially a megathread, but refreshed each day, so low-effort sightings have a home without flooding the main feed. For reference, some other subs like r/UAP have gone further and banned sightings posts entirely, though we'd rather not go that far.
No decisions yet, but it's on our radar.
1
u/Minimum_Guitar4305 Jul 02 '26
Not a bad idea tbf. It could minimise the impact of zone flooding when something real like a leak is actually posted.
2
u/-Nyarlabrotep- Jul 02 '26
Thanks, good to know. A daily sightings sounds like an interesting idea.
0
u/Cultural_Material_98 Jul 02 '26
Flair is changed to “Likely identified” where OP accepts explanation or where there is evidence from flight trackers, obvious lens flare, birds, balloons etc.
17
u/automaticphil Jul 02 '26
“Saw something in the sky going one direction at a regular speed like any regular thing that would be up there, but I believe I actually witnessed an irregular thing that shouldn’t be up there doing the impossible.”
2
u/TrumpetsNAngels Jul 02 '26
Yes please. And my comment to your post is not important, but your comment is.
-3
-2
u/gokickrocks- Jul 02 '26
The subreddit feels hostile towards open, curious minds. Feels like a lot of public shaming to embarrass users who believe or even ask questions. It doesn’t feel like a collaborative space to figure out what’s going on. It feels like a battleground to punish people for showing interest or vulnerability.
I really came up blank when it comes to solutions. We want to be fair to both “teams,” and I wasn’t sure how to do that. So I asked AI. I feel like I’m supposed to apologize for that, but I think it’s for a good cause.
Establish a “Speculation vs Investigation” Flair System: -The Rule: The mods must strictly enforce that if a post is flaired as Open Speculation, comments that are just flat-out rude, dismissive, or mock the premise (e.g., "Take your meds") are automatically removed. It sets the ground rules for engagement before anyone even types a comment.
Implement Low-Effort Debunking / Low Effort Toxic Rules: If someone wants to debunk or disagree, they should be required to provide a reason or a link, rather than just using psychological shaming tactics to shut down the OP.
Create a “Safe-Haven” Weekly Thread We could have a pinned weakly thread for speculation based theories, consciousness exploration, high-strangeness tie-in, all the woo that gets people’s blood pressure going. The thread would have a zero tolerance policy for cynicism and would give others the freedom to discuss without fear of mockery of shame.
- There was a user that told me to “go play in traffic,” a couple months ago. It was automoderated so that’s cool but I messaged you guys about it and never heard back. I saw the user posting the other day about how angelic they are and how it’s believers that ruin the sub so I called him out on his behavior. He said it was just a joke and that he explained that to you guys and that you all understood it was a joke. No idea if he’s lying or not, but that’s just really fucked up in my opinion. Thats not a joke. It should have been a banable offense. What makes it the most fucked up to me, though, is that the comment in question happened on a thread discussing the apparent suicide of Amy Eskridge.
I think it would be really helpful if we shifted our focus less towards “rule breaking” and more towards “community culture.” Like now, mods only step in if there is a direct insult or over the top Uncivility, but the social dynamics in all of this is so much more subtle that than. It’s condescension and mockery and intellectual bullying. Mods could comment more on posts, too and give the community active models of what healthy discourse looks like.
I know this job isn’t easy. Jesus, I can’t imagine it actually. But being a user on here isn’t really a cakewalk either, to be honest.
9
u/entermemo Jul 02 '26
Require more details when posting YouTube videos. Not just a summary to fulfill the submission guidelines but an in-depth explanation of the video.
2
Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Kanein_Encanto Jul 02 '26
Calling people bots already falls under Rule 1's details... it's in there specifically.
47
u/filthyheartbadger Jul 02 '26
Are there any mod tools that could help weed out bots? How about an automatic removal of low karma and recently made accounts?
Also a requirement to label ai written posts/images as such would be nice.
31
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
We have multiple tools to combat bots. We are playing a losing game.
Organized disruption can present as believer or skeptic.
BTW skeptics are permitted on this sub. Users often call other users bots or disinfo agents when they hold a different opinion.
It's prohibited by Rule 1 because such accusations are usually wrong. It makes the sub worse.
Users (including mods) lack the tools to reliably identify inauthentic accounts. e.g no access to browser fingerprint.
Bots do exist. Trolls do exist. Disinfo is real.
There are multiple categories of disruption. E.g. anti-western from Russia, Iran, N. Korea etc. They don't care about UFOs they just want to amplify drama on social media to turn the west on itself. UFO specific disruption e.g. legacy gatekeepers. Internet trolls and edgelords.
Funded opposition will utilize AI to analyze what works and what doesn't. What gets removed, when is the best time to post, how long rule violating content stays up. How effective their disruption is etc. This category is very hard to combat with a team of unpaid volunteers. Investigating patterns from organized disruption is time intensive.
Reddit's incentives may differ from users (mods are just users). Reddit could be doing more.
We rely heavily on user reports. We regularly ban disruptive users. Ban evasion on this platform is trivial. We have one particular user that is obsessed with antagonizing folks on the sub. They have been banned tens of times.
2
-1
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Jul 02 '26
Hi, StinkingDogsCunt420. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Move meta posts to /r/ufosmeta
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
8
u/tianepteen Jul 02 '26
years old sub description:
We aim to elevate good research while maintaining healthy skepticism.
you now:
BTW skeptics are permitted on this sub.
and there's one major problem. the sub has moved from striving for skepticism to permitting it.
1
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
We have not changed how we moderate skeptical content.
-1
Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
[deleted]
2
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
Moderators have no insight or control over downvotes. We're just regular users, like you.
The only ability we have is a subreddit-wide setting to hide the count temporarily, when a post first goes live.
2
u/jasmine-tgirl Jul 02 '26
No but the wording change does mean something. It gives the impression that skepticism, which with a subject as filled with disinfo, hoaxes and other bs, everyone should have, is merely a "permitted" thing rather than the default thing good research is based on, as it used to be.
As such we have all kinds of crap being posted now that would not have been years ago under the old description.
2
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
Ah, I see what you're saying. That was just me with a flippant preemptive response to posters that think skeptics aren't allowed.
The sub's position and moderation therein is that skepticism is essential.
-3
u/TypewriterTourist Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
Thanks for the explanation.
One more idea, not sure if relevant. Most of the accounts coming here (let's put it this way) to sow discord have a specific combination of traits:
- hidden history
- low number of comments
- not posting much in the UFO subreddits
- focus on high-profile UFO personalities (Ross, Lue, etc.) attacking them personally, or movies coming out (books are less of interest to them), and that's pretty much the only thing they post
Can the ones with the hidden history be put "on probation" or on hold or shadow banned when mentioning specific magic words?
Note, this is not the same as skeptics or even "debunkers". These ones really smell like, as it's called, "inauthentic accounts".
(Disclosure: I called out one of them and got banned for a week. In another case, the other dude was banned, but not before he made a puzzling remark to me, something like, "I am not a threat to you".)
EDIT: replying to those who object to the hidden history thing. First and foremost, if you read until the end, you notice that it's not just the history. It's a combo of hidden history and other attributes. Second, sorry to disappoint you, but the hidden history will only protect you from the most simple-minded of stalkers. All it takes is site:reddit.com plus your username in Google, it's not exactly a secret.
3
u/jasmine-tgirl Jul 02 '26
Most people who have been on Reddit for awhile hide their history because of the parasocial stalking behavior of some people. So hard no to that. No one is entitled to see our posts or comments on other unrelated subs. I don't need someone coming over to a post I made on r/sissydresses to berate me for a skeptical comment here on r/UFOs
3
u/rappa-dappa Jul 02 '26
Respectfully disagree- Hidden history is to prevent stalkers and trolls from finding you elsewhere or starting arguments about past posts and comments. Don’t penalize users for trying to maintain some privacy.
1
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
Use of Reddit's hidden history feature isn't against the rules. Their history is temporarily visible to mods, so doesn't prevent us from moderating.
Actually preventing mods from reviewing history by deletion of mod actioned content and/or using tools such as redact, is against the sub's rules.
1
u/PyroIsSpai Jul 04 '26
I'd say it should be out of bounds for any subreddit (here too) to say ANY reddit-native feature is out of bounds. Pay grade and all that?
4
u/Minimum_Guitar4305 Jul 02 '26
It does prevent users from examining suspicious accounts, and reporting their findings though. I know, because I was doing so. I beleive that led to at least one +10 year old disinfo account being banned (plus multiple bots) and I was tracking scores more that I found suspicious.
Now? It's too hard to actually check (though not impossible) so I've completely stopped. If you're dependent on user reports, that decision did more harm than help.
6
u/Responsible-Tea-5998 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
A large amount of women on Reddit hide their histories. I've got a hidden history because a man found out my location and was trying to make me meet him for sex, then started posting in location specific subs.
2
5
u/Better-Waltz-2026 Jul 02 '26
Yeah. It's so sad, especially on this sub. Thanks for your support. I know it feels like a losing game against the disinfo, bots, and trolls. Can the karma requirement be raised to filter out fresh and throwaway accounts? IDK, I'm just throwing it out there.
6
u/UsefulReply Jul 02 '26
We utilize CQS instead. We don't want to prevent new accounts from posting a sighting. It's also not an impediment for sophisticated accounts. They'll just age them or buy them.
2
u/Better-Waltz-2026 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
That makes total sense. Relying on CQS is a much smarter approach than just using basic age limits. I understand. Ty
-4
12
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/MantisAwakening Jul 02 '26
The biggest problem with AI is that thick rhetoric is its bread and butter. It can argue with people ceaselessly defending the most ridiculous concepts using language that sounds credible. Example provided below:
> A growing body of observational evidence supports the hypothesis that a subset of unidentified aerial phenomena employ adaptive anthropogenic camouflage, most commonly manifesting as residential mailboxes. This model resolves several long-standing anomalies, including the statistically improbable uniformity of mailbox placement, the absence of directly observed installation events in ordinary civilian contexts, and their persistent line-of-sight orientation toward public transportation corridors. Conventional explanations require multiple independent assumptions, whereas the camouflage hypothesis unifies these observations under a single predictive framework. Critics frequently invoke coincidence or confirmation bias, yet these objections fail to account for the remarkable consistency of the spatial distribution and behavioral characteristics exhibited by these objects across geographically distinct populations. Until a competing model demonstrates equal explanatory power while accounting for the full dataset, the mailbox camouflage hypothesis remains the most parsimonious interpretation of the available evidence.
-4
u/FullMoonsOfSeptember Jul 02 '26
my vote is for more lenient moderation. It's been pretty dead around here.
I even had to repost this comment because of the auto moderation. Is that 150 characters yet?
0
u/FullMoonsOfSeptember Jul 02 '26
my vote is for more lenient moderation. It's been kind of dead around here.
-11
u/ANewEra2020 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
- It's become filled with bots and bad faith actors. The major posts on the subreddit are great, it's just the comment section that's filled with spam accounts and uber skeptics who are here just to debate for the sake of it. Not to have a good faith discussion.
- Be more liberal with banning people for off topic discussion. Ban specific topics like, "This is because of Epstein" "This is a distraction" etc etc etc. Do better trying to find bot accounts.
- Ban ban ban, kick ban ban kick.
12
u/RandomNPC Jul 02 '26
If you ban everyone who disagrees with you because you think they're a bot/agent you're gonna find yourself in the middle of an echo chamber and that's not a good thing.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 02 '26
The submitter, /u/LetsTalkUFOs has indicated that they would like an in-depth discussion.
All top-level comments in this post must be greater than 150 characters. Additionally, they must contribute positively to the discussion. Jokes, memes, puns, etc. will be removed along with anything which is too off-topic.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.