I run a UGC group, Titanite Holdings (Group ID 9229429), with 968 published catalog items — military and historical insignia, shoulder patches, flag patches, unit insignia, rank devices. 9 year old account, no prior terminations.
On July 29, 2026 at 3:35 AM the account was permanently terminated for Terrorism/Extremism. The notice lists the reviewed activity as an asset named “UGC ACQ”, Place ID 17783319392, review date July 29, 2026 3:35 AM.
UGC ACQ is not a game. It is a workspace holding meshes and textures while they are built and tested. With no gameplay and no players. It is technically public, but no new version has been published since roughly fall 2025 over eight months. The joinable version has been effectively empty that entire time.
The moderation notice July 29th 3:35 AM
UGC ACQ the place instance cited in the moderation notice
The notice cited the place. It did not identify any mesh, texture, or model inside it. The review timestamp and the termination timestamp are the same minute.
Why this does not appear to be a catalog asset:
When a catalog-linked texture is moderated, every dependent catalog item is automatically disabled. This is documented behaviour on this account, on February 13, 2026 I filed a bug report here after 151 textures were moderated within a three hour window, disabling 44+ live catalog items. Several of those textures dated to October 3, 2025 and had been live and approved for months, it was resolved that same day.
No such cascade occurred this time. All 968 catalog items remained on sale and individually unflagged until the group itself was locked, which was a consequence of the account action rather than any decision about an item. Zero catalog assets have been removed.
Pattern of automated false positives on this account:
In the six weeks preceding this termination, three separate automated moderation actions on this account were appealed and accepted by Roblox, June 26, July 11, and July 19, 2026. In each case the original automated action was reversed on review.
A fourth action on July 22 cited a different place on this account under a different category. That notice also identified only the place, not any asset within it.
This termination follows the same pattern: a place cited, no asset named, review and enforcement timestamps in the same minute. I would ask whether these actions share an automated pathway, and whether place-level scanning is evaluating pre-existing content that has been live and approved for months, as occurred in the February incident, where moderated textures dated back to October 2025.
Appeal timeline:
- Appeal submitted 10:16 AM, July 29 via V&A.
- Denied 1:00 PM, July 29 under 3 hours. No asset identified, specific request was not addressed.
- Support ticket opened July 29. Fourteen days, no substantive response.
- Follow-up sent August 7. No response.
- A second account under the same enforcement action, banned explicitly for account linkage rather than any independent violation, was appealed and accepted in approximately 2 minutes.
Appeal window closes August 28.
System: Windows PC/Chrome
Expected behavior
A moderation notice citing a place should identify the specific asset within that place that triggered the action, or the creator should retain enough access to locate and remove it. As issued, the notice names a workspace containing over a thousand meshes and textures without indicating which one is at issue, making compliance impossible.
An appeal submitted against a stated 5 business day estimate should not be resolved in under three hours without addressing the request made in it.
Where a termination cites a place-level violation and no catalog dependency cascade occurs, that discrepancy should be reviewable by a human.
A private message is associated with this bug report
