mike carey

I disagree, it's not an 'exclusive upper crust', it's people who have demonstrated a commitment to the site. It's something they have earned, not a 'right' they are claiming.

That's about a feature of the site in the past (before my time) but that doesn't mean that there is no need for an exclusive nook in the forum for trusted members (however defined, and donations may not be the best criterion). Of course, I should be part of that (that was a joke, I have no more claim than anyone else). Who should be there? That's difficult, and who would decide is also difficult. People who have a broader perspective and understand why the site is here and what it can do, rather than just what it is.

I just knew I should have gone to see Hamilton when I was in Sydney a couple of weeks ago just so I could come on here and talk about it.

There are actually four of them!

I missed the chance to take that flight. When I was researching fights to NZ last January a QF codeshare on the EK flight came up as an option for the return leg. It would have required an overnight in Sydney, but wasn't showing as an option when it came time to book and I ended up flying back via AKL and on to Canberra on the same day. It would have been nice to fly CHC-SYD on an A380 (but in J not F, and for cash). Probably won't be an option in the future. /End of flying off on a tangent from the thread topic./

Yes, I understand that, and if I contact someone a long time out it's only to see if they would be interested. After that, I've only chatted enough to let them know when my plans firm up, not once a week or anything like that. I never say I'll be there in say eight months on this day, or anything like that, I'm never organised enough that far out to say that anyway! I also realise they may not be in town when I'm there, if so I just have to live with that. Likewise if they have stopped escorting.

Grammatical joke lifted from Twitter: Wife: You need to do more chores around the house. Me: Can we change the subject? Wife: OK. More chores around the house need to be done by you.

Lucky you! I've hired three guys in Canberra (visitors to the city) and Sydney, all were good or even great. Of course the pandemic is much less of an issue here than in the US.

Or your love for the WC could lead to a trip to the WC.

It might seem bizarre on first blush, but if you invert the thought process and ponder how often you hear someone speak for the first time and it is jarring because that's not how you thought they would sound, it illustrates that people can and do imagine a voice for people they haven't heard speak. Consciously attributing a particular speaking voice to them isn't a particularly big step beyond having an unconscious expectation of how they will sound. As others have noted there is a similar phenomenon with picturing people you have only heard speak, like radio announcers and now podcast makers.

As I said earlier, this sounds like a good plan. An aside, however, on what maintaining it would look like. I think the practice of it being a review site and not a debate-about-reviews site that applied when Daddy was in charge needs to continue. The client gets to write his (or her) review, the escort has the right of reply and that's it. Reviewers don't get to continue the debate. Should a client have the role of moderating that? There is one feature that RM offers (not that it is taken up all that often) that I think the review site would benefit from, and that is for escorts to make any sort of reply, not just a rebuttal (pun not intended). The thank yous and comments escorts make on reviews can offer insights into their personalities and help persuade readers to hire them. (Or not, but that's within their control.)

I doubt you're alone in that sentiment, but the review site is how I found the forum and I know I'm not alone. (I have only written one review of a now-retired escort.) Having the review site still operating would likely ensure the continued flow of members to the forum, thereby keeping the discussions here vibrant for longer, and providing a larger pool of potential donors if donations are a part of its future. Rob thinks it won't be too difficult to achieve so I'm all for him to continue the effort to revive it.

Those power outlets have me perplexed. The top one looks like a European two pin outlet but the bottom one is an Australian/NZ or Argentine one (I think) although here it would be inverted (the single vertical pin at the bottom). Where do they have outlets such as those? Somewhere in South America? (I don't remember seeing anything like that in Argentina and haven't seen them here.)

In a related first world problem, the former 'verbose' icon in @stevenkesslar's title on here shows as a question mark.

I didn't think you were, and you make the important point that nether 'aspirational' nor 'fanciful' means 'impossible', and that part of our thinking process now should be aimed at working out how far we need or want to go in the 'community' stakes. We (and by that I mean those of us who are talking about this, not the wider body of users) also need to realise that for many users retaining the site and having a say in management (however defined) are separate things and many have no interest in the latter. For me, @Coolwave35's comments, after my previous intervention, on how involvement of members through the admins/moderators would work sounds like a good plan, as does the rest of his conceptual outline of how management would work as part of a shell company, after probate issues have been resolved.

As has been acknowledged we don't have a vote yet (and may never), but so far @Coolwave35 has offered the only firm solution for a way forward (subject to being able to secure a tech expert willing to join the project permanently). Community based solutions are aspirational at best and fanciful at worst. Reluctance to have a single owner (with or without quote marks around the title) is understandable as it would be a new owner, but that is the situation we have been in since the site's inception. I happen to think that a management model (which can be a separate and coexisting thing to ownership) that involves the community would be the preferred option but I recognise that may be difficult to achieve. The priority should be for the forum to survive.

Safe travels to both you and @Oliver. I hope to see you next April!!

Yes, one post ago (I think) at 10k posts. Welcome to the junta, err, I mean council.

Leaving aside the minor snark in your reply, I was commenting based on inheritance law 101 not specifically Nevada law. The site is an asset of the estate and inheritance law determines ownership of assets and leaves how to manage them to the estate's beneficiaries. My comment to which you replied omitted one possibility, and that is that a court could make an interim ruling on the management of an asset pending determination of its eventual ownership. Would this asset warrant any court's attention? I doubt it, without someone with standing requesting a ruling.

The court won't appoint a new owner, it will decide who is to administer Bill's estate. That person will decide what happens to the site.

I agree that any new owner can decide that, but we need to plan for the eventuality (one that is not assured) that the community needs to decide what the ownership is. We can do that as a contingency plan that may become moot if a single owner emerges.

@Cooper, the equestrian events.

Design Matters. And the thread it comes from:

I think that it would be neither good nor bad if they were all from the US. Clearly most should be, for two reasons. Most forum members live there, but importantly the site operates in a US legal environment and understanding US law on the forum's main topic and also the regulatory environment of LLCs and not-for-profits is critical. I am agnostic on whether a geographic spread within the US is important, and have no idea whether the domicile (by state) of the ownership vehicle matters. Thanks @stevenkesslar for the unwarranted compliment, and yes, I had thought of putting my hand up. I still hesitate to do so as I'm not sure I can offer the required level of insight into what is best for the forum, or that I could contribute effectively to urgent discussions given the time differences involved. I think there is a need for community input into structure and future management of the sites that is more focused than the Cabana, but whether that should have a management role, or eventually be limited to an advisory or a focus group role is an open question. I'm watching the evolving efforts closely.

Just say no!