BC-0300 · TROUBLESHOOTING
Editorial review 2026-09-27
Roblox Build Moderation Appeal Evidence Checklist
An appeal evidence packet should connect each factual assertion to the actual moderated item and relevant version. Label what an attachment shows, when it was captured and what it cannot prove. Keep a concise explanation of why review is warranted; unrelated screenshots and later edits do not automatically support reversal of an earlier decision.
Symptom
The creator has evidence for a moderation review but risks sending irrelevant, mismatched or overstated material.
Immediate action
Match every assertion and attachment to the affected item, version, timing and actual evidentiary scope.
Diagnostic branches
- An attachment depicts another version or object.
- Correct its label and relevance or omit it rather than implying it shows the moderated candidate.
- The evidence is a later remediation.
- Label it as a subsequent change, not proof of the original state.
- The attachment cannot establish the proposed assertion.
- Narrow the assertion to what is actually shown and retain the limitation.
Least-destructive change
Preserve genuine original records and avoid fabricated evidence or unnecessary disclosure.
Retest
- Identifiers and version context agree across the packet.
- Each attachment has a relevant purpose and honest limitation.
- The packet follows the current official route without implying an extra review entitlement.
Escalation
Submit through the actual notice's eligible official process and follow its current requirements. Evidence organization is not a promise of reversal, restoration or another review.
Working notes
Start from the notice and the official route's requested information. Match the affected account, game or asset identifiers before attaching evidence. A similar title or an image from another version can misdirect the review even if the file itself is genuine.
For each proposed attachment, write its relevance in plain language. A screenshot may establish that a particular text was visible at a recorded moment; it may not show a hidden interaction or the full experience. Keep those limitations explicit rather than treating a narrow image as proof of universal absence.
Separate original-state evidence from remediation evidence. Material captured before the action can support a factual account of the candidate then; a later corrected scene can explain what changed. Neither should be relabeled to serve the other purpose. Preserve originals where available and do not fabricate timestamps, permission records or conversations.
Remove unnecessary personal information and unsupported allegations. Use the official private channel for information it actually requires. A concise, relevant packet helps communicate the question but does not determine the decision or create an additional appeal opportunity outside the current process.
Examples
- Evidence row: attachment—original scene capture; relevant assertion—specific displayed wording; context—identified candidate and recorded capture time; limitation—does not show every optional interaction.
- Remediation row: attachment—revised scene; purpose—show the substantive change made after the notice; limitation—not evidence that the earlier candidate already contained that change.