Dynamic Heads Bypassing Invisibility

rjeeqwwda · May 15, 2025, 1:35pm

There are currently dynamic heads on the platform that are so small they are barely visible on the average avatar. These heads do not require any accessories or layered clothing to create this effect—they are simply designed or positioned in a way that makes them nearly undetectable in-game.

In addition to their small size, many of these heads are also floating slightly above or away from the avatar’s body, making them even harder to notice. This combination of near-invisibility and off-body positioning allows players to appear headless or untraceable during gameplay.

This is being exploited in games where visibility is a key mechanic—such as PvP, stealth, or competitive modes—giving users an unfair advantage by reducing the targetable or visible surface area of their avatar.

I’ll link one of these as my example below, along with a reply listing violating heads in conjuction.

Moderative action is normally taken with these heads, as moderators understand how these designs are being abused to allow these crude, unfair advantages over other players;

Even as of recent, 8 hours ago;

This precedent should be set for all items bypassing invisibility, and these heads shouldn’t be allowed on the platform, as listed in the Terms of Service on Creation Guidelines

“Do not create items that intentionally disrupt a user’s experience, such as: Making a user’s avatar disappear (completely or partially).”

Expected behavior

Dynamic heads should follow consistent visibility and placement standards, similar to traditional heads. They should not be small enough or positioned in such a way that they can be used to evade visibility. Heads with such a design are being used to give unfair advantages ingame.

rjeeqwwda · May 15, 2025, 1:36pm

Here are the top 100~ or so violating heads that abuse this feature of floating invisibility. Moderation should reevaluate all of these items.

Update 6/3/2025; Updated all items to be the current Top 100.

raskolibov · May 15, 2025, 3:21pm

These items do not make the user’s avatar invisible — they should be considered simply as small-sized dynamic heads. Therefore, the focus should be on the visibility and size requirements outlined in the character specifications.

If you refer to the body scale guidelines, you’ll see that significantly smaller dimensions are actually permitted. For any character type (which can be categorized as Normal, Slender, or Classic depending on what is selected via the 3D importer), the minimum size requirements for dynamic heads are 0.5x0.5x0.5 across the X, Y, and Z axes. Size requirements for dependent parts such as arms and legs may vary by character type, which is why these categories exist.

That covers the sizing aspect — as for visibility, the visibility policy states that for dynamic heads, the bounding box must occupy at least 35% visibility from the front, side, and back views. For other body parts, this requirement is 50%.

All designs should adhere to these technical specifications, as they represent the enforced rules. The post that was cited currently references a standard that is not aligned with what is officially enforced. I hope this reply provides helpful clarification for everyone.

I believe all of these items meet the size requirements, as their dimensions appear to be well above .5 across all axes. However, just by looking at them, it seems that some may fall below the 35% visibility threshold.

I’m not entirely sure how this is technically measured or what tools are available to calculate it accurately, but I hope the appropriate action is taken if there’s a policy violation.

rjeeqwwda · May 15, 2025, 4:25pm

You’re absolutely right in pointing out that dynamic heads are allowed to go down to 0.5x0.5x0.5 in size across all axes, and the character spec does permit these minimum dimensions across Normal, Slender, and Classic body types. The technical information you shared is accurate, and it’s helpful for understanding the current limitations in place.

That said, there’s a broader concern that goes beyond just meeting the size requirements on paper. While these items may technically fall within the allowed range, they’re not using that flexibility in a way that aligns with the intended spirit of the platform’s design standards. The 0.5 minimum size exists to allow creative freedom and stylized proportions — not to be exploited for making heads so small or hidden that they’re practically invisible.

Additionally, there’s a growing trend of using inverted face normals and clever geometry tricks to make heads appear even smaller than the actual bounding size, effectively bypassing the minimum size visually while still being technically compliant. This kind of manipulation isn’t in line with the platform’s intent and contributes to a loophole culture that weakens the integrity of avatar customization guidelines. i.e This “half head”, originally linked in my post.

While creative use of dynamic head scaling can be powerful — especially as a base for unique designs — using it as a loophole to produce tiny, floating, nearly invisible heads just undermines the system. These aren’t creative designs in good faith; they’re circumventions of policy. Items that exist solely because they ride a technicality shouldn’t be allowed, especially when they disrupt the intended user experience and visibility standards.

Hopefully, moderation continues evolving to catch and address these types of edge cases, because it’s important to keep the platform fair and creatively open — without letting it be taken advantage of.

rjeeqwwda · May 15, 2025, 4:32pm

(As seen above, that slight glimmer of white is my head, with the continued ignorance of moderation to allow these heads to pass.)

Just look at the difference between the default provided head, and this half head with inverted faces. It’s night and day, and I’m honestly not sure why this is being allowed just because it barely scrapes by specifications.

If you’re going to allow everything by technicality, then by your logic, invisible layered clothing suits which validate on upload are also allowed? No. Just because an item happens to be in specification does not mean it conforms to the TOS.

raskolibov · May 15, 2025, 5:45pm

I checked whether this head actually follows the rules “on paper.”

To start, I placed a .5 x .5 x .5 cube—which is the minimum required size to comply with the rules for stud size—inside the head, and this is how it looks. So in terms of size, it’s fine.

After that, I focused on visibility—specifically whether it follows the bounding box rule.

When viewed from the side, it appears to cover 12 squares horizontally and 12 vertically in the bounding box, but when looking directly from the right or left, you can see that the lines don’t fully enclose the whole box. So, let’s say there are actually fewer than 144 squares. If at least 35% coverage is required, it would need to cover 50.4 squares. However, since the total area is less than 144 squares, the required number is actually less than 50.4 squares. That means if it covers less than that, it’s still within the rules.

Now, when I counted the fully covered squares within the box by the mesh, the number was very close to 50. And if you also consider the overflow into adjacent squares around the edges, it actually covers more than 50 squares from the sides. So technically, this shows that the asset does follow the rules—even if that’s hard to believe.

I didn’t feel the need to check the other sides in terms of the bounding box, because it was clearly exceeding the 35% threshold.
Front:

Back:

So, technically, it follows the rules in terms of visibility as well. From the side, it’s really close to breaking the rule, but it is what it is…

Now, let’s move on to the “inverted face” thing you mentioned. Roblox actually allows this in dynamic head uploads. Just click on the head mesh in Roblox Studio, go to the Properties panel, and uncheck the “DoubleSided” option—that will give you the visual result you were referring to.

Roblox allows uploading dynamic heads like this, and I personally uploaded a bunch of bundles this way—with zero moderation action taken on those items. And this isn’t related to the bounding box—it’s simply a matter of not making the mesh double-sided.

So in my opinion, bundles that follow the rules shouldn’t be taken down—especially if you’ve set a clear technical “what to expect” limit, and a bundle respects that. Taking it down would be wrong. I’m curious about Roblox’s stance on this, but from a rules and technical perspective, I don’t see any issue.

rjeeqwwda · May 15, 2025, 5:51pm

As listed in my previous reply (which you’d ignored) items qualifying for upload can still exploit what Roblox expects from creators regarding visibility, age appropriate content, likeness to brands and franchises; If not then there’d be no need for moderation regarding all of these topics.

It’s all based on intent, and it’s clear as day these are trying to breach the limits originally allowed for creativity, only to create the smallest functioning heads on the platform.

For now, let’s agree to disagree, since I think it’d be best to seek an official reply from staff.

rjeeqwwda · May 19, 2025, 10:13pm

Recent heads seem to have been moderated, but these top heads listed in my report continue to stay up.

raskolibov · May 20, 2025, 12:58am

I explained in full detail how the bundle in the original post — and the bundle you think violates the rules, which you also demonstrated in a video — actually follows the guidelines. I went over the visibility and size requirements for bundles, provided all relevant details, included screenshots, and even imported the bundle’s mesh into Blender to show specific, case-by-case evidence proving that it doesn’t violate any rules. And yet, you’re still expecting action to be taken. This level of ignorance is honestly wild.

I also took a look at several bundles in the large list you sent, and they all follow the specifications I mentioned step-by-step at least a few times above. However, if there are any that truly violate the rules, please let me know because I haven’t seen any.

However, I believe this post should primarily focus on the fact that most of the recently uploaded “half head”-style dynamic heads don’t follow the rules in any way, and yet they’re being allowed and spammed. I think those are what need to be addressed — not the popular, rule-abiding bundles I’ve already broken down in full detail to show how they’re compliant with policy.

I think the issue with the initial upload needs to be addressed, basically.

None of the bundles listed below follow Roblox’s character specifications policies — you can even tell just by looking at them — and these are the bundles shown in the first two rows of the screenshot on the Recently Published page. So, the validation issue needs to be resolved in the first place.

https://www.roblox.com/bundles/44832320836659/Headless-Half-Head
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/60719680923183/Gaian-Void-Head
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/12829677407821/Reversed-Half-Head
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/43246029688677/Void-Black-Half-Head
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/240905846242812/Headless
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/145968656199801/White-Half-Head
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/205822207287888/Head-Recolorable-Black
https://www.roblox.com/bundles/179282197692287/Half-Head-Recolorable

rjeeqwwda · May 20, 2025, 1:05am

Invisible layered clothing continues to plague the market, in which also meets validation requirements (while not following the Terms of Service on visibility.)

We shouldn’t excuse things just because they loosely pass by the validation checks Roblox sets because they have been seen to be faulty at qualifying creations. Not only that, but the current head size requirements are set for creative, constructive items that build off this practice. These items are solely created to be matched with hairs and heads that makes them seem to be non-existant.

We can back and forth over this for months, it won’t serve as anything constructive. Either half heads are against Terms of Service or staff will agree these heads are allowed, in which these items will be protected by moderation. Let admins reply to this thread instead of reiterating the same point.

raskolibov · May 26, 2025, 9:11pm

I took another look at the rules and noticed something interesting. So apparently, Roblox doesn’t actually allow backfaces. In short, backfaces refer to flipped normals — when the inside is shown as the outside or vice versa, essentially what is called “reversed.”

This also includes backface culling — or what they call an exposed “hole” — which basically means viewing the backface from the outside, effectively exposing it. I’ll be providing a lot of examples of this below.

Here’s the direct link to the policy: Character specifications | Documentation - Roblox Creator Hub

“Watertight - All geometry must be watertight without exposed holes or backfaces. Meshes used as outer cages do not need to be watertight.”

When I wrote my previous replies, I genuinely thought this was completely fine, but after doing like 10 minutes of recent research, I realized that’s not the case.

Frontface: The direction the normal is facing
Backface: The opposite direction of the normal

Basically, in Blender, if you go into Edit Mode and press Alt + N, you can flip the normals — turning frontfaces into backfaces — which exposes the backfaces. They’ve explicitly banned this behavior.

The left side shows a cube with proper normals, and the right side shows one with flipped normals and exposed backfaces.

Now here’s the problem — myself included, many UGC creators are violating this rule, including a bundle creator who literally won Roblox’s 2024 Innovation Award for Best Original UGC at RDC… and that creator is @Reverse_Polarity, who has 14 bundles that break this policy. I’ll provide all of them below. So yeah, it’s a big deal

Also, yeah — the bundle I yapped on for 2 hours above is breaking this rule too.

1. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/94447019929969/Static-Glitched
2. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/191675628341672/Shattered-Glass-Walker
3. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/23596342293551/Shattered-Glass-Walker
4. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/196325563411978/Disintegrating-Woman-Test
5. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/9646466031387/Disintegrating-2-0-Woman-B
6. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/148762163927784/Disintegrating-2-0-Woman-A
7. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/1649602/Woman-Ghost-Walker
8. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/337105/Ghost-Walker
9. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/331346/Floating-UFO-Body
10. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/337090/Ghost-Walker
11. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/337785/Ghost-Walker
12. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/332015/Floating-UFO-Body
13. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/334256/Floating-UFO-Body
14. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/332365/Floating-UFO-Body

rjeeqwwda · May 27, 2025, 9:13pm

More evidence that the current bundles being passed by moderation aren’t following the proper TOS. Hopefully moderation looks into this

raskolibov · May 28, 2025, 5:18am

The bundle I yapped about was deleted after I sent only one report.

I never reported any bundles until I defended the item and noticed an additional rule violation. I only reported it the other day, and it got deleted. This leads me to believe that no one else is reporting any bundles…

rjeeqwwda · May 28, 2025, 5:20am

May I ask how you’re reporting these? I’ve tried reporting them on the bundles page where it just says “Report Item” and it seems to do nothing. Reason why I decided to open this report in the first place.

bvetterdays · May 28, 2025, 5:30am

I doubt what he’s saying is true. It’s likely he (and multiple other users) reported the item a while ago, and it was finally deleted just now, so he decides to post acting like he has magical powers and a second after he reported it, it got deleted. I wouldn’t take his word for granted

deIuxor · May 28, 2025, 5:54am

I still have undeleted stuff in my inventory that allows me to cover the space of entire games in layered clothing lol idk how people think that this is getting fixed right now. This is a far larger issue that will take years to fix. There is 1000’s of items that are bypassed and it’s going to be awhile before they secure their catalog from these bypassed clothing items

rjeeqwwda · May 28, 2025, 6:15am

Roblox isn’t a stranger to setting up banwaves that correctly dispose of violating items. If they were willing, items that clearly abuse features that turn players invisible and or abuse the size barriers to create floating heads would be punished and removed.

deIuxor · May 28, 2025, 6:16am

Surely they could do that or they could just eradicate the ability for those people to continue being able to upload the items so that when they do delete the items they can’t just keep coming back. That’s what they are trying to do and it takes time.

rjeeqwwda · May 28, 2025, 6:19am

Roblox already removes permissions from users who upload items violating the Terms of Service (albeit, temporary.) If you’re reporting that this isn’t working properly, that would be perfect for a seperate thread.

deIuxor · May 28, 2025, 6:27am

if it was working properly we wouldn’t be having this conversation and lol that’s the layered clothing in game