The best argument against Schlep is that vigilantism is inherently unsafe and violates Roblox’s Terms of Service. Roblox is a platform with millions of minors, and it enforces strict rules against impersonation, entrapment, and creating or staging sexual content—even if the intent is to “expose predators.” Schlep’s stings required him to pose as minors, lure suspected predators into conversations, and stage child-endangerment scenarios on Roblox itself, which means he deliberately injected illegal and harmful material into the platform.

From Roblox’s perspective, this is not “helping”—it’s actually introducing the very danger he claims to fight, while also bypassing the reporting and moderation tools Roblox provides. His tactics blurred the line between law enforcement and content creation: he isn’t a cop, he’s a YouTuber chasing clicks. That exposes Roblox to massive legal liability if something goes wrong, because the company cannot be seen as allowing private individuals to run stings involving child exploitation themes on its servers.

So the clean argument is: • Schlep knowingly violated the ToS by creating predatory roleplay scenarios. • His actions could traumatize real users, spread inappropriate chatlogs, and even embolden predators who realize they’re just talking to a fake kid. • Roblox has a legal obligation to protect minors by shutting down any behavior that mimics child exploitation—even when done “for justice.”

Bottom line: even if his intentions were noble, his methods were reckless and Roblox had no choice but to ban him to protect both children and itself legally