Lets be honest we pay real money to get access to this space money. It has value.

To those posting that what happens in the Bonus Room does not constitute torture:

---

"Since 1973Amnesty International has adopted the simplest, broadest definition of torture:

"Torture is the systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain by one person on another, or on a third person, in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter."

---

Erotica1 inflicts systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, through means of several hours of subjecting the victim to demeaning and humiliating tasks alongside harassment and insulting from himself and his peers, in order to accomplish their purpose of causing the victim to leave the situation, against the will of the victim to fulfill the Bonus Rooms demands for the reward promised in the contract of the Bonus Room between the victim and the perpetrators.

It is not necessary to be restrained or prevented from being able to remove oneself from the situation, for it to constitue torture, and in this incidence, it is exactly that which the perpetrators are leveraging against the victim.

An analogy would be a wife remaining in an abusive relationship with a husband who inflicts upon her systematic and deliberate acute psychological pain, because she knows that if she files for divorce, all the assets, including the house, would remain in the property of her husband, as they are in his name. What the husband is doing to her, though superficially enabled by her remaining, nonetheless constitutes torture, as he is accomplishing the purposes of his will, namely of her remaining there for him to torture, against the will of the latter to leave the situation, as he knows full well she can and will not because then she is homeless and destitute.

In Erotica1s Bonus Room torture itself is the MEANS whereby they accomplish their goal of, sooner or later, forcing the victim to leave the situation, at which point Erotica1 wins the Bonus Room. This is achieved by inflicting on the victim systemaric and deliberate acute psychological pain.

That Erotica1 causes the victims acute psychological pain, is evidenced by the psychological state the conduct they are subjected to in the Bonus Room results in. The victims are obviously suffering from it. Of that there is no question.

A Dev has been made to sing for his ship. But he did not suffer acute psychological pain in the process.
It is evident from the recording, however that Sohkar and his wife, did.

Obvious throw-away alt disregarded.

Try again.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4400219#post4400219

That is up for debate and is not a fact

Threatening me with physical violence is a crime.
Punching me in the face is a crime.
Continuing to punch me in the face though I stand still is a crime.

Try again.

For elaboration on how Erotica1's conduct in the Bonus Room constitutes torture:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4400219#post4400219

Torture is internationally pronounced illegal in almost every single jurisdiction on Earth.

Any even superficial indication that torture might be occuring requires immediate investigation by all concerned parties and authorities.

Throwing my support behind the 'Ban Erotica 1' bandwagon.

CCP I strongly hope you listen to your community on this one.

The EVE player base does not lose their proverbial **** over scammers. Not like this.

Erotica 1 is a vile, sociopathic piece of work and the allegations of coercion to provide naked pics of significant others should be passed on to the relevant authorities.

Goons, even you guys kicked him for being a creepy scum bag. Please provide what evidence you can to CCP of these allegations.

In game ramifications only are not enough, legal authorities need to be involved.

[quote=Remiel Pollard]
---

It is ad hominem. You apparently don't know the definition of the term.
Just like how you didn't know the definitions of the terms "sadism" and "masochism" earlier.

ad ho-+mi-+nem
[ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahdGÇÉ] Show IPA
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

It depends, if it just once and between you and your daughter then of course not.

How about if I offered my son some food and kept taking it away from him until he becomes very distressed, filmed it all and then posted it on youtube..

Then repeated this a number times and posted each clip, would that be okay with you?

The scam part is fine, this is the part that isn't acceptable for me, and why I consider the bahaviour of Ero and his buddies to be beyond the pale.

"...Early in the proceedings, the victim admits to having a minor speech impediment that quickly becomes apparent. One of the instigators pounces on this and suggests that any word the victim cannot pronounce properly, he be made to look up the definition for and read that definition as well..."

The above quote is taken from Jester's blog on the subject.

Why go to a bonus room after they give you their stuff?