I would like to see the guidelines for when to use ROBLOXCRITICAL updated to be enormously more explicit than they currently are, first.
There are too many questions left behind by the current guidelines for enforcing that to be even remotely fair.
I believe that there should be some sort of warning before a strike and suspension is applied… So that someone knows what they are doing is wrong.
Awesome, I cannot wait to see it in action
That’s what the first strike is for. No need for warnings, if you quality for a strike, it means you are intentionally doing something inappropriate, it’s not something you’d accidentally run into. (i.e. for forum etiquette issues, you just get a feedback message, not a strike)
To add to what @buildthomas said, you can see all the things that qualify for strike points are pretty blatant.
Like how the other day, when Roblox broke VehicleSeats all across Roblox, and the person who made it ROBLOXCRITICAL was told it wasn’t Critical. I would definitely believe that breaking a key part of Roblox is pretty critical, but apparently it’s not? It’s just too up in the air.
Criteria for robloxcritical are up here and it’s unambiguous that the VehicleSeat bug did not meet it:
I agree that we should definitely improve the ROBLOXCRITICAL guidelines though, as non-critical issues (e.g. reproducible crash for rarely encountered worfklow) quality as ROBLOXCRITICAL and some actually critical issues do not.
I think we must begin by analyzing what we define as a Critial bug. Personally, I’d define it as “a bug which significantly impacts / impairs a commonly-used feature, and is reproducible in most games”.
At risk of overstating the obvious… this means if you make an off-topic post, it does not give you a strike, but the post may be moved out of the thread and you would receive a feedback message why your post was off-topic. (Making off-topic posts is against forum rules)
I think he got it. However, I’d like to see a movement towards warning people for being on-topic.
I doubt anyone actually misunderstood, but I’ve adjusted the wording. Thanks.
Thanks for going through the trouble
Not nitpicking, as I doubt anyone would missunderstand it; just trying to be humourous!
Genuinely was confused with the wording.
If there is any chance whatsoever that I’d gain a strike by trying to he helpful and reporting a bug, I would absolutely never report one. Even if I thought it were the most catastrophic issue Roblox had ever faced. Simply not worth the risk of being cut off from this important community forever.
I think it’s justified, I like how the strike system is mostly for behavioural so that’s ok in my eyes
I don’t think that bumping an old thread should ever be considered wrong (unless you just say “bump” with no additional content).
I frequently come across old threads with really useful information, and I am not going to be hesitant to comment on the thread, just because it is old.
We define bumping as making a post active again without adding enough actual content to the thread (somewhat in relation to the age of the thread). Adding a significant comment to an old thread is fine, that’s not really what we consider bumping.
I am glad that you elaborated more on your definition of “bumping.” Without knowing your definition it was sometimes conflicting to decide between a) creating a thread very similar to an older, existing, thread, or b) replying to an old thread and potentially having it considered a rule-breaking “bump.”