Defining custom behavior for Players:BanAsync() (for chat bans, tool bans, etc.)

As a Roblox developer, the BanAsync() feature is currently limited, as it only allows you to prevent players from joining your game.

As the owner of Spray Paint, there are hundreds of cases every day where my moderators want to restrict specific in-game privileges, such as chatting or accessing tools, when a full ban would be too harsh.

Developers should be able to define custom ban behavior. The config argument of BanAsync() should support two new parameters. The first is a new enum, BanBehavior (Enum.BanBehavior.Default and Enum.BanBehavior.Custom). The second parameter would be a metadata table to store data for custom bans to determine how the player should be handled when they rejoin.

This could look something like this:

local function banPlayer(player: Player) -- Example of new BanAsync() parameters
	game.Players:BanAsync({
		UserIds = {Player.UserId},
		Duration = 3600 * 24,
		DisplayReason = "Chat offense",
		PrivateReason = "Bullying",
		Metadata = {Type = "Chat"}, -- Used to store data for custom bans
		Behavior = Enum.BanBehavior.Custom -- If Custom is chosen instead of Default, banning will not kick the player like normal
	})
end

-- This could be a new method to handle when a player is first banned and when they rejoin
Players.PlayerBanned:Connect(function(player: Player, banData)
	if banData.Metadata.Type == "Chat" then
		mutePlayer(player)
	end
end

Issues With Current Methods

Currently, developers are limited to using DataStores to implement custom ban behavior. Several problems arise from this:

  1. Bans are often stored in multiple places (DataStore bans aren’t displayed in the Creator Dashboard with BanAsync() bans, making accessing and modifying ban data more complex)
  2. DataStore bans cannot support alt-account detection
  3. DataStores can be more unreliable without proper safeguards from rate limits and data loss
  4. Detecting accounts that are in other servers in the game often requires use of MessagingService (BanAsync handles this automatically and reliably)

Example Use Cases

  1. Chat banning players who are harassing others
  2. Tool banning players who are spamming loud audio from a boombox gear
  3. Creating a custom in-game UI for bans (many games already do this to integrate an in-game appeal system)
  4. Banning players from using a vote kick feature if they are abusing it
  5. Teleporting banned exploiters to a jail cell where other players can laugh at them
9 Likes

Although the goal of more flexible moderation is understandable, extending BanAsync() to support custom in-game behavior would create significant technical, safety, and privacy issues at the platform level.

1. It blurs the meaning of a “ban.”

A ban is supposed to be a clear, enforceable contract: you can’t participate. Once bans become “maybe you can still join but with weird restrictions,” the word loses meaning. That makes moderation harder to reason about for developers, players, and Roblox itself. Clear primitives beat flexible-but-ambiguous ones at platform scale.

2. Raises privacy and alt-account tracking concerns.

Allowing custom ban metadata that persists across sessions could be abused to track players’ alternate accounts or behavior across games. This effectively turns moderation tools into surveillance mechanisms, which is a serious privacy risk. Players expect that bans are limited to enforcement, not cross-game tracking, and misuse could expose Roblox to legal and trust issues.

3. It invites abuse and humiliation mechanics.

Some of the example use cases (“teleporting banned players to a jail cell where other players can laugh at them”) are exactly the kind of thing Roblox has to protect against. Giving first-class API support to partial bans with custom behavior makes it much easier to create punishment-as-entertainment systems that cross into harassment, even if that’s not your intent.

4. Platform bans shouldn’t execute game logic.

BanAsync() is an account-level enforcement tool, not a gameplay hook. The moment Roblox allows ban metadata + callbacks that alter gameplay (muting, disabling tools, teleporting), bans stop being enforcement and start being scripted behavior. That’s a dangerous coupling between trust & safety systems and arbitrary game logic.

5. It creates consistency and safety risks across experiences.

Roblox needs bans to behave predictably everywhere. If different games interpret “custom ban metadata” differently—or worse, incorrectly—you get inconsistent punishment, accidental overreach, or loopholes players can exploit. Central moderation tools work best when they are boring and uniform.

6. It complicates auditing, appeals, and reversals.

A single “you are banned until X” is easy to display, audit, appeal, and undo. A ban that secretly means “muted here, jailed there, tools disabled elsewhere” is not. That’s a nightmare for Creator Dashboard UX, moderator tooling, and user trust—especially when multiple moderators are involved.

7. It undermines least-privilege enforcement.

Roblox intentionally limits what bans can do because bans are powerful. Letting them carry arbitrary metadata that games are expected to honor expands the blast radius of mistakes, bugs, or compromised moderation access. A bad ban config shouldn’t be able to soft-lock a player into custom punishment logic.

8. This already exists at the correct layer.

Yes, DataStores are annoying—but that’s the right layer for nuanced, game-specific restrictions like chat mutes, tool locks, or feature bans. Those are gameplay moderation decisions, not platform enforcement decisions. Roblox separating the two is intentional, not an oversight.

9. Alt detection + partial bans is a bad combo.

Applying alt-account detection to non-ban punishments raises serious fairness issues. Getting fully banned because your alt was muted is one thing; having invisible restrictions propagate across accounts is another. That’s a trust and transparency problem waiting to happen.

TL;DR

Your problem is real—but solving it by turning BanAsync() into a customizable punishment engine pushes too much power, ambiguity, and risk into a system that needs to stay simple, consistent, and abuse-resistant. Partial restrictions belong in game logic; bans belong at the platform level. Mixing the two would cause more harm than convenience.

I do agree that it could increase complexity in certain areas by blurring its meaning and entering game-level logic, but I also think it could solve complexity on the developer’s end and make it easier to create advanced moderation systems in games, which are needed more than ever right now.

I also think any abuse cases you mentioned are technically possible right now. You could likely find a way to keep track of alt accounts of players by logging metadata of the banned account in the private ban reason and reading it off alt accounts that join. I agree that harassing rule-breakers by putting them on public display in a jail cell isn’t the best way to deter bad behavior, but this is already very common in popular admin systems and was mostly a joke. From a legal perspective, Roblox would be adding a tool intended to give developers more control over traditional forms of punishment, rather than a tool that would be primarily used for harassment.

I think this is a neat idea but I can see Roblox rejecting it on the premise of keeping the functionality of BanAsync purely for player bans. I don’t think player bans were ever intended to function as anything but, and clever DataStore usage covers all other use cases for less serious player punishments. The automatic alt propagation would be interesting, though.

As for the addition of a Metadata field, the PrivateReason kind of already serves this purpose, although not necessary as a way to include strictly metadata (it can be used for that, however)

also, @MikkelDevs gave you an AI slop response :-1:

3 Likes

Why did you need to use AI for this?

I’d appreciate this as a feature. I can easily see games with trading systems utilizing this for trade bans, as we would in our game.

Roblox utilized the term “experience moderators” with the chat changes lately, so maybe they will expand the capabilities more over time.