Frozen snapshot of the SimDemocracy Archives, captured 2026-05-05. Read-only mirror; no edit, no live updates. mypenjustbroke.com

SD v tajworks 2025 Crim 61

From SimDemocracy Archives
Jump to navigation Jump to search

SD v tajworks [2025] Crim 61

Date of judgment 24th May 2025
Judge Judge Heinrich
Charges
  • 1 (one) count of Article 63, Terms of Service violation
  • 1 (one) count of Article 55, Harassment in the first degree
  • 1 (one) count of Article 23, Resisting arrest.
Verdict Guilty on all counts
Sentence 1 day, including time already served, + 3 months + 6 months
Applicable persuasive precedent

JUDGEMENT by Judge Heinrich

Background

[1] The background of this case is that the defendant offered to exhibit his "raid bot", after which he went on to do other actions such as leave and rejoin the server and speak with a person in a demeaning way.

Considerations

[2] Exhibit 1 establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed believe he possessed a raid bot, violating the Discord Terms of Service broadly construed. Discord Terms of Service prohibits self-botting, while owning or controlling a raid bot is a clear use of the Discord API "to enable or promote others to violate[] the Discord Community Guidelines". Likewise, saying "do you want to see my raid bot" clearly falls under the "promotion" part of this prohibition.

[3] Exhibit 2 shows the defendant leaving and immediately rejoining, allegedly to get rid of the arrested role. The defence did not contest this charge.

[4] Exhibit 3 shows the defendant harassing the prosecution (as an aside, do we have prosecutorial / public defender recusal laws?). The defence claimed provocation as a mitigating factor.

Verdict

[5] The defendant is found guilty of one count of violating Discord Terms of Service and sentenced to a three-month ban. The defendant is found guilty of one count of resisting arrest and is sentenced to a mute of one day including time already served as arrested (this sentence is thus already fulfilled) due to good behavior. The defendant is found guilty of Harassment in the first degree and sentenced to a ban of six months.

Citations

<references />