SD v Rabbit 2025 Crim 109
SD v Rabbit [2025] Crim 109
| Date of judgment | 8th October 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Terak |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict | Guilty |
| Sentence | Permanent ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Terak
Introduction
[1] This trial was originally presided over by Judge Alexa before becoming inactive and being replaced with Judge Terak.
[2] The state charged Rabbit with 1 Count of violation of Article 64 of the Criminal Code 2020 for setting up their account as a self-bot and relaying messages that contained trigger words onto a TIDE intel server.
On in trial motions
[3] The defence objected to the inclusion of testimony by Muggy on the grounds of the affidavit including an opinion and including facts not in the evidence. The defence later changed the objection to be one on the basis for lack of foundation against the signed affidavit. The court did not grant that objection without providing further reasoning given the matter was prima facie. For completeness sake I will provide the reasoning for this decision. An affidavit has always to be attributed to the person signing it. An objection based on a lack of foundation can not be sustained against a signed affidavit.
[4] According to Art. 13 §2.3. CPA an objection for lack of foundation may be raised against the authenticity of a piece of evidence in question. The affidavit itself is a signed expression concerning a third piece of evidence though. It has a clearly contributing author and is created with the sole purpose of being used in trial. Unless doubts can be raised as to the true identity of the author, which did not happen in this case, the affidavit needs to be seen as issued by the person signing it. The affidavit thus clearly was an authentic one signed by Muggy.
[5] A further objection against introducing another piece of evidence was granted by Judge Alexa. This piece of evidence will not be considered by this court any further.
On trial arguments
[6] The state opened with arguing that Rabbit is not a real user but instead an account deploying automated actions. The state provided the following definition of selfboting
“Selfbotting, otherwise known as altering a user account to perform automated actions”
taken from the Discord Platform Manipulation Policy Explainer.
[7] The defence opened their argumentation with the argument that the evidence deployed by the state is lacking to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of their client and further that even if such guilt might be proved, it is not upon SimDemocracy to enforce the Terms of Service in case of Selfboting.
[8] The state went on to provide a detailed description of the investigation that lead to the discovery of the selfboting nature of the account rabbit and how it was linked to the messages being sent in the TIDE Server. Since the procedure was novel, the court shall recapitulate it shortly. A thorough recounting of all steps will be left out as not to jeopardize potential future investigations into similar accounts.
- [8.1] Through a process of elimination on all users in the server the account that sent messages related to specific phrases in the end it could be deduced that a single account was in a unique position of server access sections and triggered phrases as well as lining up with the timings of such access and such sections. Through the evidence provided to the Court this was credibly demonstrated. A reasonable doubt does not remain between a link between the account “rabbit” and the posts in the TIDE Server.
On selfboting
[9] The question remains if this account indeed was running an automated script. If the messages were simply copied and posted by a human user, that might violate the security related political goals but might not be illegal. If the actions indeed were compelled through automation though, it stands to reason the account might be in violation of the ToS and thus a crime have been committed.
[10] Discord itself makes the difference between a regular user account and a bot clear (see Discord Automated User Accounts (Self-Bots)). A bot interacts with Discord through the API and a regular user account through the regular interface. Accounts that are bots are differentiated by a Bot tag or an APP tag. The account posting in the Tide Chat held an APP tag. The account of rabbit did not.
[11] Discord has implemented strict differentiation between user accounts and bots for various reasons, including data security, as bots using regular accounts might give access to sections of servers or discussions a bot would not get access to.
[12] If a bot or an app is added to a server, the server admins have to agree to give specific access to the bot or app. Such permissions are not granted to each user. A bot operating under a user account thus circumvents the legal checks normally put on access to these bots.
[13] Under the Community Guidelines No. 14 the use of Selfbots is against the Community Guidelines. A violation of the community guidelines is a violation of the Terms of Service (see SD v bedshaped. [2025] Crim. 89 [10]).
[14] A selfbot based on the definitions of the Community Guidelines is an automated script operating a regular user account.
[15] A link between the presence of rabbit and the bot in the Tide server has been clearly linked. The question is just if it can be proven the account was indeed operating with a script. Firstly it needs be stated that a full prove is impossible without a confession by the users behind rabbit. The overwhelming evidence deployed by the state makes it highly likely any other reason could be behind the actions materially observed.
[16] In situations in which duelling interpretations may be applicable, Occam's razor may be deployed (compare to SD v Mooklyn [2021] Crim 4 [18]). Either the user behind rabbit is constantly online, checking all channels in SimDemocracy for Trigger words and posting all messages manually in a tool that copies and posts them into a bot that posts them into another server, instead of simply forwarding them, or a script scanned all messages it had access to and whenever trigger was present in a message, copied it into a database whose entries got posted into a dedicated output forum through a second app. Given the second is far easier to implement, especially with ChatGPT now being able to assist in the coding steps, making it so no coding knowledge is required, it is the more likely possibility.
[17] Additionally the following is to be considered. The systematic mining of messages and transmission to other servers without the posters permission is in violation of real world laws on privacy and copyright. Thus under the doctrine of higher law, such conduct would be illegal for violating real world law, which governs and thus breaks contract law between users and Discord.
[18] The court finds that without a reasonable doubt remaining, the account of rabbit was indeed a self-bot.
[19] Selfbots are in violation of the Community Guidelines and thus in violation of Art. 64 §1 Criminal Code 2020. The question remains if SimDemocracy is meant to enforce the ToS in this specific regard. Given the account can only perform its action as a selfbot while present in a server, removing the account from the server removes the violation. Further the account was only created in relation to SimDemocracy to retrieve messages from our state's territory. Thus enforcement can be reasonably expected.
Verdict
[20] Rabbit is found guilty of a Terms of Service Violation.
Sentencing
[21] The following factors shall be considered for sentencing under the Sentencing Act.
- [21.1] As mitigating factor shall be considered that the defendant did not receive any prior convictions for any criminal actions within SimDemocracy.
- [21.2] As aggravating factor the clear planning involved in setting up the rabbit account and its connection to the TIDE Server.
- [21.3] The abuse of inherent trust in the relation between all users and their trust that their messages are not systematically scanned and sometimes forwarded to hostile and unknown servers was abused. This too is considered as an aggrevating factor.
- [21.4] The fact no victim of the actions of rabbit had any chance to protect themselves in the community is considered.
- [21.5] A clear pattern of behaviour demonstrated by rabbit and its connected bot are considered aggravating.
- [21.6] The need for general deterrence for any such measure is considered as aggravating, as no such action can be tolerated if trust in privacy of communication is not to be eroded.
- [21.7] Further the fact is considered by this court that, as demonstrated through evidence, rabbit is used as an automatic scrapping tool and thus the considerations normally given to humans to learn from their past mistakes and their ability to better themselves do not apply to rabbit.
- [21.8] The lack of a pattern of positive behaviour by the account rabbit is considered.
- [21.9] The general authority of the Terms of Service is considered.
[22] Giving heed to all factors presented a permanent ban shall be issued against the account rabbit. Given the account rabbit was only created to serve a scrapping purpose it shall be treated as if an alternate account and the ban apply to all users behind the account or that have operated it. The ban shall be executed against all these users immediately upon discovery of their role in the operation or design of rabbit and the connected technical measures. This ban is to be executed in all territories of SimDemocracy.