As a Roblox developer, it is currently too hard to know what is wrong with the Maturity Label when a moderation makes it as invalid.
If Roblox is able to address this issue, it would improve my development experience because it would make it easier to address any issue the moderator flag
For example, my game recently had its Maturity Label rejected for “Crude Humour”, but there is no instance in my game where there is any (including “general Humour”)
Forcing the moderator to upload an image to prove his point would both help the developers fix identify and fix which part of the game was subject to (in my case) “Crude Humour” and it would also force the moderators to take better actions since there would be a trace of it
EDIT:
Based on what @pr_mary said, there should be a minimum playtime established for the moderators before they are able to render a judgement. E.g.: they need to play the game for 15 or 30 minutes. Another thing could be that every action needs to be validated by a second moderator
I just remembered, it also happened about a year ago as well where it was rejected (it was a legitimate case, we added blood and forgot to mark it) and the moderator feedback was the same as it is now
I agree with this feature request. Recently, our game falsely had our content maturity label rejected. We reported that the game had violence, but the moderator disagreed. Upon joining our game, players are almost immediately subject to the severity of violence that we reported on our questionnaire. Therefore, I am led to believe that some content maturity moderators act in haste and make critical errors in their judgement. As a result of this occurrence, we lost a couple hundred players immediately and the game was unplayable until we resubmitted the questionnaire. To my knowledge, we also have not had any response to our appeal (though we may have missed this because another team member submitted the appeal and may have forgotten to update us on its status), but that’s a separate problem. Requiring them to upload images would definitely encourage moderators to act with more care when making decisions that could impact hundreds of players.
Thank you for your feedback. Hi there, is that full moderator feedback, or are there other content descriptors they gave feedback on? Our system doesn’t reject if all of your content descriptors are at the same level (or over-declared) based on the moderator feedback.
However, if you have one under-declared content descriptor (and an over-declared content descriptor), we will reject your overall content maturity label and provide feedback for all of your content descriptors. But I can see how this is confusing - would you prefer to see only feedback from the under-declared content descriptor?
Editing to add that all of our moderators play through your experience for a period of time before making a decision, to make sure they’re assessing your experience holistically.
I’m quite certain that the image captures the feedback section in full. However, I do not have an original screenshot that displays the whole page, so I cannot confirm this. Unfortunately, only partial screenshots were sent between our team.
That seems to be a good move, but is this condition checked upon the request being processed or is it a human check done by the moderator? Additionally, when was this implemented? Our game had its content maturity label reset on October 6th, 2025, so it would make sense if this was implemented after that date. I feel pretty certain that this condition was somehow skipped. If not, then I believe that the interface didn’t provide the other (under-declared) inaccuracies that the moderator might’ve added.
Additionally, in my past experience, content maturity moderators have always provided their own analysis in text that specifically detailed their observations. This leads me to assume that the explanation is required. However, I did not see this explanation on this occasion. Perhaps this might indicate a user interface issue regarding some specific set of data that the moderator submitted due to the lack of both under-declared descriptors + further moderator explanation of the inaccurate descriptors.
It might be useful to indicate what’s under-declared/over-declared, or list the under-declared descriptors above the over-declared ones. It’s still important that people are able to see their under-declared descriptors because that could result in the unlocking of a new audience that was previously unavailable due to a self-reporting inaccuracy.
I see. Do you believe this was more likely to be a one-off error where the human may have simply misclicked an option? If not, I assume it might be because they play the game through a private channel which might not encompass the accurate multiplayer gameplay that the vast majority of players experience. If they do play the game through a private channel, are there any steps that moderators take to address that?
I originally began typing this without organizing my ideas, so some parts of my writing may be disjoint. Let me know if any clarification is needed on what I’ve said!
I’m quite certain that the image captures the feedback section in full. However, I do not have an original screenshot that displays the whole page, so I cannot confirm this. Unfortunately, only partial screenshots were sent between our team.
I’m quite certain our system does not send any rejections unless at least one of the descriptors is under-declared. If you have more information that shows otherwise, we can investigate this as a bug.
That seems to be a good move, but is this condition checked upon the request being processed or is it a human check done by the moderator? Additionally, when was this implemented?
This has been the case for a long time (before October 6, 2025 for sure).
Additionally, in my past experience, content maturity moderators have always provided their own analysis in text that specifically detailed their observations. This leads me to assume that the explanation is required. However, I did not see this explanation on this occasion.
This explanation is an optional field for moderators to provide further input.
It might be useful to indicate what’s under-declared/over-declared, or list the under-declared descriptors above the over-declared ones.
This is why we show all the over and under declared descriptors, but it sounds like it’s leading to some creator confusion. We can look into UX optimizations next year.
I see. Do you believe this was more likely to be a one-off error where the human may have simply misclicked an option? If not, I assume it might be because they play the game through a private channel which might not encompass the accurate multiplayer gameplay that the vast majority of players experience. If they do play the game through a private channel, are there any steps that moderators take to address that?
It may be a misclick, or they may not have found violence during their time playing through the experience. They test the experience as a regular player. If you believe the moderation team made an error, please submit an appeal under the Violations & Appeals portal.
There should be a way for creators to, from the Questionnaire page to flag wrongful moderation directly. I appealed for my case, it’s been a week without any answer from the appeal team (long past the questionnaire deadline). This is FAR from being ideal as this forces us to add wrong label to the game under the threat of severe moderation.
Even if there was a ‘flag wrongful moderation’ option on the questionnaire page, it would still go to the same moderation team to review appeals. We are looking into the Crude Humor report, and we can take a look into whether the appeal queue is backed up if you can share your ticket ID.
Thinking about it, maybe it could go through a prioritized appeal list since experiences affect a lot of users and a wrong rating can block many more from playing depending on what went wrong with the label (it could increase the required age to play the game for example, which would drastically reduce the target audience)
