Consider adding a single ban function that will check the first argument type, check if it’s an instance, number or a table and continue ur logic there. It would make the module way easier to use, but I still don’t see a reason in simplifying default roblox api, as it’s already simple enough. You can also add type definition, since roblox default api doesn’t have it for some reason.
I think the thing people fail to realize here, is that using the Ban API isn’t all black and white.
For example, I work on a game called R6 Dances for my friend. Because they own the Experience, there is no way to transfer games to a group without paying a massive fee, and putting up with animation migration. In order for me to figure out the ban history of the game, including the users in said history, I would need to own the game which isn’t possible (obviously). This makes accessing ban information incredibly annoying if the Experience isn’t a group game, because Roblox doesn’t offer that permission to Team Create members of a “Shared with Me” experience. (Even though they offer it with groups. Incredibly dumb if you ask me)
The way the original poster can improve this resource is adding the ability to bring up a UI showing a list of banned users in the API, including the information pertaining to their bans. This could be placed in a dedicated UI that also lets you ban/unban users.
I’m a bit surprised none of these ideas were pitched, but I also shouldn’t be surprised given how bad feedback can be in this category sometimes. If there is a will, there is a way, and trust me, this could be improved into something that does actually save time. I’d probably use it 
1 Like
People tried to give feedback, but a huge degree of incompetency was displayed. The module provided 3 separate functions where only 1 was needed. The other thing to realize here is, that this module doesn’t serve a purpose, it doesn’t make the Ban API easier or more reliable for anybody. These are the reasons people think this module shouldn’t have been published or needs to exist.
2 Likes
Shutting someone down who is likely new to creating resources isn’t fair though, and proper constructive criticism should be given so they can improve. It’s difficult to do so when you’re met with constant negativity. I think I’m going to stick with my opinion, and that this can be made better.
You don’t have to agree, neither does anyone else, but how else are we to avoid said mistakes? I’ll never understand the psychology around shutting people down to make them improve. It doesn’t help.
While there is merit to the point that telling people to not redistribute on a post that’s open source is bad, and that some spots look like it’s an API wrapper, the original posters intentions were to provide a resource. From what I’ve read, they only responded with such attitude, even through negativity.
I think at least everyone deserves a chance to create and try to improve others workflow, and if that doesn’t work out how they thought, there is people here to help build them up, rather than break them down.
2 Likes