I think I can defend my actions.
Let's get some opinion out of the way first. The accusations by the claimants are over-extended anti-semitic moral-panic conspiracy theories that obscure real and serious problems with child-sex trafficking and high-level corruption.
Like many conspiracy theories, it is going to be nigh impossible to convince proponents of the theories, because they will simply grow the conspiracy to include whatever people or organisation provides evidence against. Nonetheless, it is valuable to debunk them to help people who are initially being introduced to the theories and are "doing their own research", but haven't committed their ego to the issue who to find a rope-ladder out of the hole they have stumbled into.
So, should we have silly conspiracy theory questions on the site? Yes.
Is the question too broad? Yes, probably, but this has been a developing issue. The original claim was tighter, but the OP seems to be trying to fix that in good faith.
The edits are changing so quickly (and I can't bring myself to watch much of those videos) that it is difficult to pinpoint the problems. One seems to be a mixing of alleged witnesses making specific claims (I have only seen one) with more general claimants saying it is out there and a problem.
usual rules-gaming with bounties.
Usual? That's a new one on me. @Fredsbend has since removed the bounty. (Which is also new to me; I didn't know we could do that.)
mods badgering answers that question the credibility of witnesses, when the whole question essentially relies on that, being a quasi-legal question.
The term "badgering" is an emotive term. Yes, I posted comments explaining why I think the answer is terrible.
I don't accept the analogy of witness credibility. This is not a court of law. The readers are not a jury. Answerers are not advocates for the defence or prosecution.
I think part of the problem is a smearing together of people who claim to have directly been victims, and who can speak to individual acts (where maybe it makes sense to question their reliability) and claims like those of Gunderson who aren't direct witnesses but say that there is a systemic problem.
John Paul Rice is not claiming to be a direct witness or victim (at least in the parts of the video I could stand to watch - this guy isn't very good at constructing an argument). The OP described him as a "Hollywood producer and actor".
The answer attacked the OP's description of Rice as being from Hollywood (which is mentioned in the YouTube description.).
Even if true (His movie was filmed in Los Angeles so it is arguably at least partly false), it is more worthy of a comment or even a direct edit of the question to correct the description. Whether he isn't from Hollywood does not affect at all the evidence presented in his movie (which I have not watched, and have no plans to watch) about whether satanic rituals occurred.
The result is that the answer is an ad hominem fallacy. Everything in the answer may well be right, but we still don't know if the children are being sacrificed to Satan.
Let's get this question narrowed down. Then let's answer this question with links to FBI reports talking about the prevalence of child murder, social psychologists talking about moral panics, quotes from organisations that actually do fight child sex trafficking on how Satanists are/aren't an issue, and similar evidence.