Very bad. #1 50 robux is very cheap, and easily affordable, #2 the Exploiter will most likely continue to exploit on an alternate account, not needing to be unbanned.
6 Likes
If I changed it to 100 Robux would that make a difference?
I know you mentioned an alternative account, but fee or not, an exploiter would just make a new account.
If anything the fee is for people who have data they don’t want lost.
Very bad idea. The real exploiters just create a new account. They won’t spend their Robux on a simple unban.
Think about the fee as an alternative for players who want to keep their data. Not for exploiters that will make alternative accounts.
They would make alts if I perm banned them or if I gave them a fee. No doubt.
That’s a bad idea. I do see where you’re coming from but bail-like mechanics on Roblox doesn’t work at all. Not to mention that it’s ripping players off in-case they got mistakenly banned.
If they got mistakenly banned and there wasnt a fee, the alternative would be them perm banned. If anything they could send me a message saying they were falsely banned and I’d investigate.
Edit: Also the ban isn’t from in-game mods. It’s my anti-exploit system with literally no room for false positives.
That wouldn’t be a very smart decision.
50 robux is very affordable, and the exploiters would just come back on an alternate account to continue.
I don’t think making the price higher would fix it either sadly.
1 Like
Please read my other replies. I’ll edit the main post in a second if you wish to read that instead.
Very bad idea. If someone violates the terms of service, they’ve violated the terms of service. Period.
People shouldn’t be allowed to bend or break the rules and get away with it simply because they have more money.
The simple solution here is - don’t violate the terms of service. 
9 Likes
You shouldn’t let people pay their way out of something. It’s like bribing.
You’re profiting from bans, which is absurd. It sort of reminds me of indulgences. Richer people shouldn’t be able to get out of a problem just because they gave you more money.
2 Likes
So I get where you’re going from seeing as I’ve seen how MC servers are run. But the idea for Roblox isn’t good. Not only are the braking Roblox’s TOS you’re profiting off of that. There for I think if anything you too will be held responsible seeing as you’re not a non-innocent party involved in nefarious deeds.
Breaking the terms of services is on their end not mine. If anything it’s extra monetization.
I agree with your more money statement though.
If they got mistakenly banned why should they have to pay at all.
How are you so confident your anti-exploit system has no room for false positives?
6 Likes
Even though I’m not doing it, the anti exploit is simply a local script firing the clientside data of their humanoid. If there isn’t data sent, it’ll just kick the client, not ban.
Anyways if the data on serverside and clientside isn’t the same (it should be if they aren’t exploiting), they’ll get banned for exploiting.
Also it wasn’t specified but first time offenses (getting banned) are always reversed on every Monday. If they’re falsely banned they have time to message me about it.
Other than that, the second time they’re banned it’s permanent, unless it was a genuine error which they could contact me about.
I am against this because people that have alot of roblox could easily get away with that. Plus they could just create an alt and end up exploting again so I think its a bad idea. However maybe after a month of the ban it could be a bail of 50K because then only people that dont want to get banned again would do that. Honestly anything below 10K is to little.
Sounds like you’re trusting the client. An exploiter can simply falsify the data they’re sending to the server through the local script
Why would they do that? Falsifying the data would get them banned. It’s a clientside data check w serverside.
The exploiter cannot alter the data (they’d get banned) and if they stop it from sending they’ll get kicked.
You’re comparing data the client sends to data the server sends. The client can just send data that imitates genuine data, and it wouldn’t be detectable. Your checks should be entirely server-side
If I put the client check script inside the local script (so if they delete the client check and they imitate their own, the main script wouldn’t work), could that work?
Unfortunately not, as they don’t need to delete the client check to perform an exploit and falsify data