just to be clear, i did not use AI at any stage. i put real time and effort into those submissions

and I’m confident a quick review will confirm they fully comply with the rules

Hello,

I performed the bounty ban. I noticed you have since edited your message, but I had seen that it included several pieces of outdated and incorrect information:

- You mentioned that health checks require IPv6. This is false.

- You stated that users can switch back to the legacy runtime. This is also false, as that option was removed several months ago.

- You indicated that IPv6 for health checks was a change in the v2 runtime. This is not the case. That behavior has not changed between the legacy and v2 runtimes; health checks require IPv4.

- You referenced an environment variable specific to a particular tech stack without knowing what tech stack the user was running.

These all appear to be hallucinated statements. Could you please shed some light on this for me?

Best,

Brody

hello brody,

i appreciate you taking the time to explain this. you're right that the information was incorrect but i still say i didn't use ai

to be transparent about what happened i was researching online trying to find the most current solutions for railway 502 errors. i came across various forum posts and discussions that mentioned ipv6 issues, v2 runtime differences, and the hostname variable. in my rush to help and provide value, i mixed up outdated information with current practices and didn't properly verify everything against the official docs before posting

i've recently lost my job as a software engineer and have been trying to help people on railway to both make some money through bounties and contribute to the community. because of this, i've been trying to help multiple people quickly across different threads, and in this case, i clearly didn't do my due diligence in verifying the information was accurate and current

that's completely my fault. i should have stuck to what i know for certain or taken the time to verify everything properly in the official railway documentation before posting

i understand the concerns about the quality of information, and i commit to only posting answers going forward that i can personally verify through official railway docs or my own direct experience.

i appreciate your time and understand whatever decision you make

best regards,

ilyassbreth

moving forward, i commit tottaly to only responding to bounties when i'm completely certain of the information and have verified it directly from official railway documentation or my own hands-on experience

i really value being part of the railway community and want to earn back your trust through consistent, verified contributions going forward

To be transparent, I never intended on keeping you banned, so I apologize for that. This was more of a way to open a conversation with you about that help message.

Myself and the team see all the help you have been providing, and we greatly appreciate it. However, we do need to keep quality standards up, and providing incorrect or outdated information hurts that effort and causes confusion for both the OP and any future readers.

Thank you for understanding. I have gone ahead and unbanned you, but please do keep an eye on the information you provide going forward.

Best,

Brody

thank you so much brody, i really appreciate the second chance and your understanding of my situation. i'll make sure to be more careful and only provide verified information going forward.

just wanted to mention , i'm still showing as banned from bounties on my end. not sure if it takes time to update ?

thanks again,

ilyassbreth

Try again?

yes it works, thank you so much