Hey, I just wanted to upload a version of a face that was previously planned to release in 2015 but was cancelled. I modified the texture to fit within the standard Roblox head as the previously existing version did not. I also modified this to work with the new dynamic head system. However, when uploading this asset for review it was automatically rejected and I was banned for Misusing Roblox Systems. I attempted to appeal this decision because it seemed a little rash as it was within 1 minute of me uploading the asset for review and the ban/takedown taking place, but my appeals were automatically rejected in a similar manner. I have no real idea what rule the asset I uploaded violated or why it warranted a ban for a first time offence.
This seems to be an error with the AI moderation that automatically reviews content uploaded for review and the user marketplace. The only thing I can think of is that it thinks the facial markings are tattoos or some other marking that could be considered vulgar. However, these are stripes and signs to represent a tiger and are a common way to draw these creatures in a simplistic style. I’d be grateful for any response as I am a little dumbfounded here.
Sadly dynamic faces don’t allow any adding marking or tattoos on them and that is most likely the reason for them being deleted. Not sure why, but moderations on dynamic heads often don’t say the specific reason and just say “Misusing Roblox Systems” instead. If you check your inbox it should say the more specific reason.
I’ve personally ran into this issue many times where it was deleted for having tattoos or marking but said “Misusing Roblox Systems” on the warning menu.
I don’t have any notifications or a way to check my messages until the ban is lifted it seems
I dont know if not having a notification is in line with this but this does seem a little harsh for a first time offence if that is the case.
A ban over that does seem overkill to me. Also it feels like a flaw to leave the specific removal reasoning in the inbox and then not letting users view it until the ban is lifted
The other thing is looking at marketplace policy it seems that textures are allowed but tattoos are not. I guess this could be interpreted either way in terms of the markings on the face, but they are definitely intended to be textured tiger stripes like any actual tiger would have. IDK marketplace policy seems a bit inconsistent in general.
Yeah, to me it looks like that would’ve been removed for tattoos. Certainly not the greatest rule since a lot of Roblox faces contain content that would identify as a tattoo as well. I’d recommend removing the marks on the top-middle and then re-upload because to me thats the only part that looks like a tattoo.
Although your head violates the rules againt makeup/markings, your bug report on this issue isn’t completely unjustified. There are many Dynamic Heads that also feature markings like what is shown on your face which are pretty much ignored by moderation. Not just that, but the current ban reasons for makeup still don’t exactly explain to the player what the actual problem is - Misusing Roblox Systems is being used as an umbrella term for a plethora of different issues, I’m really not sure how we’re this far into Public UGC and moderation is still this vague.
Definitely agree with you there. A warning for a first time offense and a private message that you can view right away so you know what you did wrong in their eyes should certainly suffice. Either way, best of luck with this - hope to see it in the catalog soon.
I think it’s a little more than a feature request, staff themselves said it was being worked on for Q3:
Also I believe the remaining bug is that the 1D ban Sammy received should be adjusted to a warning - Since it is their first item, they wouldn’t of had any prior knowledge of the rule (as mentioned in the linked post)
I was actually going to mention that I remembered staff confirming this—but that doesn’t make it a valid bug report. It’s already been acknowledged as a feature request, confirmed to be in progress, and given a release timeframe in another report.
This thread will inevitably be closed soon—either for being a duplicate of the report you linked, or because it simply isn’t a bug.
@Mmm_Wafflez Before submitting these kinds of reports in the future, instead of jumping to blame “Roblox’s bad moderation,” take a moment to review the rules. As you can see, there’s a good chance your item does violate policy, especially since it’s your first UGC item and you’re likely not yet familiar with Marketplace Policy.
So do you determine the length and severity of users’ moderation infractions now? I didn’t know you were head of the moderation team
In all seriousness, no—there is no bug here. Moderation is based on your infraction history, and this user almost certainly received prior warnings before this 1 day ban. You don’t classify a punishment as a bug because you believe it’s too harsh, unless there’s been confirmed previous behavior of the moderation system working differently or the reported behavior is widespread. Neither of these is the case here.
I’m not telling anyone how to moderate, though I do wish whether or not this post is closed, at the bare minimum moderators look into Sammy’s account and whether or not the punishment was deserved. In my personal opinion as their first UGC it likely wasn’t warranted
The only other warning I received was for a decal of a “No” sign that was reverted. I appealed this one aswell and the asset was approved. This, however, is my first avatar item. Notably, the appeal portal for that decal is closed and not marked as reverted even though the asset is available again.
This is somewhat interesting as the asset is up again, but the warning hasn’t been removed or adjusted. Maybe this is why it was a 1 day ban instead of a warning?
Misusing Roblox Systems has been known to be an extremely harsh ban reason. There’s a very good chance it could be designed to start off with a 1-day-ban as the first infraction, then move up to 3 day ban, 7 day ban, and termination. I don’t know the specifics nor am I an engineer but what I’m getting at here is that 90% of your bug report has been invalidated, and leaving this report open because you got a 1 day ban but wanted a warning instead seems extremely petty to me, especially when there’s a report complaining about this exact same thing that has already been addressed, which was linked above by busted:
Edit:
Yes, the original report confirms this is likely the case:
I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. I have nothing against you nor am I trying to be petty. I was genuinely confused about what was going on here lol.
Not trying to be disrespectful here and apologies if my replies come off as such. It’s just frustrating to see this category become more and more misused as a place to complain about moderation without users actually reading the rules.
I hope you’re taking onboard what I say, despite how it’s worded. Just trying to inform you so you’re better off in future.
Not too sure then. I highly highly doubt there’d be a systematic bug that bans people for 1 day instead of warning them, it’s likely the user’s past infractions were taken into account or maybe this is an intentional change in behavior. But again, a report submitted for this reason:
..means it’s very unlikely it’ll be addressed in any meaningful capacity.
The main thing I was referencing when regarding this topic is listed in the marketplace policy for bundles:
This states that while tattoo markings and makeup are not allowed, textures, however, are. While the stripes on the head I uploaded don’t cover over 50% of the head, neither does the face as this is a classic styled head. I feel like it could be argued either way here and there is no clear example or guidelines given for a specific case like this.
If I assume that some parts of a UGC bundle should be treated as a textured part of whatever entity I’m creating but AI/moderation treats it as tattoos/makeup or some other disallowed content, there should be some level of discussion between the creator and the moderators. This second part is going a little bit into the feature requests category, but as feature requests currently stand, a majority of users cannot make topics in that category, and because this is regarding a supposed bug with UGC moderation, I think it is fine to post it here. Of course, if forum moderation disagrees I won’t fight against the thread being closed.
In the meantime I suggest you upload this as a face accessory. You can cut out the faces shape in blender, align the curvature to a normal rigs head and it’ll be recolorable the same as any Dynamic Head.
