For that reason alone, the people that created those have already cashed in and Roblox can’t claw back the money paid out. If they were to moderate those bundles, they can refund everyone because they already own the Robux ecosystem, so they won’t actually lose anything. But, the money they paid out to those people that created it, they will lose that. So, it will be left up to a manager to decide if they are going to nuke all the purchases and issue refunds for +100K players and eat the lost money, ban those people that created it from the platform and take whatever robux they had left to avoid future payouts. 
The fallacy you’re using right now is called the appeal to tradition.
“Those bundles have been sold and allowed for so long, and so many players have purchased them, so it doesn’t make sense to moderate or remove them now.”
Well, the actual truth is, creators have been abusing the size constraints of Dynamic Heads for a while now, Even before Public UGC, which has lead to Roblox updating variables on how large a head can be, how much mass has to be located in certain areas of the bundle, etc. This problem hasn’t been acknowledged for a while now, but clearly staff see the issue and are working on updating the Terms of Service as well as validation for floating heads.
1 Like
If you believe I am using the “appeal to tradition” Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, let me clarify. 
The amount of money they generate minus what Roblox has already paid out is what keeps them in the marketplace. It has nothing to do with tradition or what is considered correct in the past. It has everything to do with money. Roblox Corp. is a for-profit company and they will try to maximize profit and minimize expenses. The bundle in question is generating a lot of money for them and creating rules that exclude this money making bundle means bundles they are breaking the same rules but not generating the same amount of profit will be removed first. Eventually, they will have to do something about the biggest rule breaker, so this will take a unique solution.
That could mean, contacting the bundle developer and asking them to take down the bundle. It could mean, contacting them and asking them to change it to meet the new rules, in which case they can’t and the developer will have to take it down themselves anyway. It could mean just nuking the whole thing and being done with it. We don’t know what path they will take. I would give a 99% chance though that something will be done with it eventually, just not in the way we would assume is fair to everyone else.
That’s just my opinion.
I get where you’re coming from now, and thanks for clarifying — you’re not making an appeal to tradition, you’re analyzing the situation through a business lens. That’s fair. You’re arguing Roblox is acting pragmatically to protect profit rather than based on fairness or consistency. And honestly, I think you’re probably right that their actions will be driven by financial incentives more than policy enforcement ideals.
That said, the inconsistency this creates still opens the door for valid criticism. If smaller creators are being moderated for rule-breaking content while high-profit items are left alone, it sets a dangerous precedent — not because of tradition, but because it makes enforcement seem selective and profit-driven rather than principled. That can damage community trust, especially among UGC creators who feel they’re being held to a different standard.
So while I agree something will eventually be done, the longer it takes, the more Roblox risks looking like it only enforces rules when it’s convenient — and that’s what fuels frustration, not just the rules themselves.
Just my take too. 
1 Like
The thing is, those bundles do eventually get deleted — because at some point, moderation seems to go “enough is enough”, I guess. Whatever goes on behind the scenes, they usually get removed within a few months.
But during that window, they generate a lot of Robux. We’re talking tens — or even hundreds — of millions. In some extreme cases, like the deleted glass head, it reached close to a billion Robux just from a single bundle. So this happens whether their managers want it or not, and Roblox ends up taking the hit.
Sometimes, the delay is so long that it gets to a point where Roblox is losing tens of thousands of dollars — the creator cashes out the Robux, the buyers get refunds, and then they just spend that refunded Robux on another UGC creator’s item… who also DevEx’s it. It’s a loop. Roblox will only continue to lose even more every time they keep deleting these.
But the truth is, the earlier they remove the item, the less they’ll have to refund — and the more profitable it’ll be for them in the end. So they could just go ahead and do it now. Roblox knows all of this, which is why UGC items have a 30-day escrow period.
3 Likes
@fulltime_robloxian @PseudoRNG3816 Why are we still allowing double standards on the platform? It’s been a month since my original report, and since then it’s been investigated, requirements and validations have changed, but these heads that clearly violate the Terms of Service are still up.
By changing the validation requirements and leaving these heads up, your inadvertently allowing these creators to have special treatment – In a way saying, hey, we don’t care that you broke our rules, go sell these special heads that nobody else can create, and enjoy a lack of competition. I understand that collecting a list of all violating heads will be difficult, but at the very least take a look at my list or raskolibov’s.
1 Like
It seems like Roblox has quit doing validation and initial moderation, because how are these even getting uploaded? I’ve reported all of them and since they were uploaded recently, swift action is expected. But seriously, I hope they stop giving the green light to stuff like this.
At this point, it honestly feels like I’m the one enforcing the rules — just because I actively monitor the Recently Published page.
Links to the bundles:
1. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/81806759286100/A
2. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/186701439530682/A
3. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/279531286677002/A
4. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/148283941111283/A
5. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/227151473307957/A
6. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/41789708445814/A
7. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/117150562755617/A
8. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/1693285112433/A
9. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/251102056454798/A
10. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/234966544686031/A
11. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/39068232754263/A
12. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/38075780031467/A
13. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/242345067335393/a
14. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/67711673454134/a
15. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/146779078692767/a
16. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/108227687629337/a
17. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/30424581081877/a
18. https://www.roblox.com/bundles/169815982677104/a
2 Likes
This is getting embarrassing - @fulltime_robloxian This is the same type of validation being abused, if you could look over this and patch this loophole.
The best-selling floating head got deleted, so I guess there’s some progress 
If Validation staff are reading this post, please look into the following group: Headless Heads. - Roblox
They are seemingly abusing another method to create floating heads. This is specific to this bug report, because I am reporting heads of this nature that abuse this glitch to create floating and invisible space in between the torso and the head, where a visible amount of “dead space” can be observed.
These items create complications, specifically in competitive games, where they can be used to hide the normal visibility of a Roblox players head. The average head is twice as large as what is being shown, with a large chunk of the actual head being cut out:
The concept of a “floating head” isn’t what some people think — it refers to cases where small bits of geometry are added to artificially increase the bounding box of an item. This allows creators to shift the item’s position in ways it wasn’t intended, effectively laying the groundwork for a “headless” appearance. That’s not the case with any of the heads I’ve uploaded, and they will not be taken down.
Take this head for example — it’s currently topping sales charts, and its mesh contains several small geometry pieces that cause it to sit noticeably higher than a standard head. It’s a textbook example of a floating head.
Floating heads don’t necessarily need to have scattered geometry all over the place — in some cases, creators add tiny notches at the back of the mesh to increase the bounding box. While this might technically help the item sit correctly on the character’s head, the fact that they’re using small geometry to intentionally expand the bounding box still counts as a policy violation.
Another example would be this head. They’ve added notches at the back, which aren’t even visible from the front in the catalog preview — that’s how sneaky the bypass is. These notches were clearly added with the intention of manipulating the bounding box so the head sits perfectly in-game, and that’s exactly what the floating head policy is meant to prevent.
1 Like
In my opinion, the fact that so much of the head is cut out to the point where its only real purpose is to achieve the smallest possible head makes it no better than the other examples listed. While it might not use scattered geometry or obvious notches in the same way, the end goal is the same: to manipulate how the head appears and functions beyond its intended design. That said, I understand where the line is being drawn here, and at the very least, it’s clear that moderators are recognizing this kind of modification as a violation under the current policy.
As of July 15th, it’s been a full month and week or so since this response. Can you update us on anything regarding the current moderation process for these heads? They’re still very visibly using exploits to “float” above the torso, and when attempting to validate these heads they no longer work as validated material.
1 Like