Ban API: New Device Blocking Capability

[AmazingBarnabe (ItsBloxy)]

@avodey

Why can’t these last forever like normal bans can?

I made an argument of if bans were permanent, they’d cause real-life problems down the line, particularly in cases where the device is passed on to another user.
My full description and explanation is in another thread somewhere, but i forgot where…
Edit: Found it again!

see here

@AmazingBarnabe

My best guess is that they’re trying to create a proper system that’d allow for blocking whilst still allowing access to new users.

You need to consider scenarios when people pass down devices to others, especially in this time of RAMageddon where the prices of electronics are rising up and up.

If you say “ban this device permanently, no exceptions”, that is very, very selfish.

What if the person goes ahead and passes it down to a child, only to have the child unable to play your game (or appeal, in that matter), because of someone else?
You don’t expect the child (who could be 7, for example) to have a Discord account, now, would you?

Or, a device is banned but someone sells it, say, a year or two into the future? Again, that new player would inherit the ban unsuspectingly. Why should the customer have to go through all the hassle of unbanning themselves for something an entirely other person has done?

Yes, it cuts down on malicious users repeatedly using the same device, but in the end, there are more downsides than upsides.

In fact, when I upgrade my own devices, I don’t recycle them or trade them in. Instead, I pass down my devices to others so they can use it.
My younger siblings obviously don’t need Centre Stage or MagSafe, and as such, there is really no harm in passing a device down.

My main point here, is that we need to think of others that could be affected on the side. The Collateral.
(And no, not everyone is willing to, or can afford, to purchase a new device.)

…and that’s why we’re probably still waiting for the feature!

@AmazingBarnabe

Well, one can say it’s both selfish and selfless for either party in the end.

It’s selfish if a developer perma-device-bans because it renders the device unable to be passed down to others, whether fairly, maliciously, or more.
Additionally, you need to think about edge case scenarios.
What if that same bad actor trades in their phone in good condition? Like, Apple has an Apple Refurbished store, and they do all the checks to get it up to date, but in the end it’s a reused phone. What if a device-banned phone gets into the system, and a genuine purchaser (from Apple, mind) has to carry on the ban even though they really shouldn’t at all.

Apple, Back Market, and other refurbished stores don’t exactly check whether a player is banned off of a specific Roblox game and ask for them to unban them, no?

Then again, it’s also selfless if a developer bans a device, because it renders that particular device unable to be used in future for malicious actors, requiring the bad actor to purchase a new device to continue, causing quite a few headaches.

It indeed isn’t the fault of the developer here, but arguably, one could say it relies on Roblox themselves to accurately ban devices.

Like, if a device is permanently banned, that has some pretty big repercussions down the line. Nobody is exactly going to replace the insides of, say, an iPhone, just so someone else can play Roblox.

Device bans should be, at most, temporary.
That way, bad actors are punished well, while at the same time avoiding maximum collateral damage, avoiding regular users inheriting the ban.

Yes, temporary device bans in the end aren’t very practical for developers, but it’s something in between selfish with “ha! you can’t pass this device down now” and selfless with “nice try, but your hacks are no more”.

Roblox should also add something in their ToS’s to prevent developers from banning (and rebanning) a device for an extended period of time (after all, there’s a high likelihood they’ll move on, and a bad actor really won’t wait 30 days to try again).
If Developers automatically re-ban a device once their ban expires, the collateral begins and it’s on the developer who should be punished too by disregarding edge cases on where someone else could genuinely unknowingly take the ban themselves.

Of course, the ideal method here would be a portal to automatically unregister the device from device bans on proof that a new, legitimate, owner is indeed in possession of the phone, but as I mentioned before, temporary bans also work fine.