unexcept Could you please elaborate on why it always goes to the owner of the instance? Since this is a feature request aimed at updating VRChat's current system for world creators, I'm curious to understand the rationale behind this default reason.

RootVR:

Any instances beyond public represent a space controlled by the person or group who created it. Imagine it almost like your own home or a community hall.

When you make that instance you would assume that you or your group are the ones who set the rules and the limits of that space. Allowing world owners control of that space breaks that assumption and lets them invade what is your space with their own rules.

World creators need more control over who can use their worlds and for what purposes, but that is a separate matter to moderation within the instance itself.

Pure public instances are a separate matter, since those fundamentally have no rules beyond our terms of service and code of conduct, so historically VRChat has allowed world creators to moderate that space since it is their world, and because those spaces would otherwise have no moderation beyond our own limited capacity.

Thanks for the clarification. I see the reasoning behind the decision now. Perhaps the core problem lies in being suddenly removed from a group instance without any prior warning or a legitimate explanation. I've faced this frustration personally, and it's truly disheartening to be unexpectedly kicked out of what you believed to be an open, public instance. Many users may not even recognize the different between group and standard public instances, which can result in undeserved dismissals and possibly discourage them from further engagement with VRChat.

There is work to add support for reasons to both bans and kicks when in a group instance. Kicks and warns are now also logged in the audit log which should hopefully encourage more organised groups to ensure their mods are following appropriate steps.

You may also be interested in:

unexcept I'm glad that world owners will eventually be allowed to limit what groups can host instances in their worlds. I feel like that is a safe counter.

unexcept That's great news, thanks for the information!

DAG-XR: No promises on that being the solution we go for, but it is one that has been suggested here on Canny.

We know we have to address this problem, the exact ways in which we will isn't entirely obvious because there is no 'correct' solution. So we are carefully weighing our options and trying to figure out a way to maintain the assumption that an owned instance is a controlled space (only by the owner), but also allow world creators a way to have more control over their worlds than simply public/private (not that private does much anyway).

When we have decided on a solution, we will likely talk about it in a dev update.