Forum Steering Committee - Volunteers Needed

[+ Autumnal]

One really key community planning question is whether the dormant or dead review website is ever going to be brought back to life.

I would like to see the review website brought back to life, but only if the reviews were allowed to contain the information that was allowed before the government intervened (maybe locate them overseas?) - the reviews now contain very little useful information. I found the review site by searching "escort reviews" when I first started to explore this hobby, and I loved reading the reviews! And the review site lead me to the forums. I don't think I ever would have found this community without the review site.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Autumnal

[coriolis888]

 

snip - snip

 

 

Team Washington can deal with probate and administrator and everything else that goes with that, with $20k from our community as a thank you, but we all agree quietly that the websites aren’t considered part of the estate anymore. I happen to believe that no one with any standing would challenge this but sure, there’s a chance. I’m of the mindset that all’s well that ends well. And I believe possession is 9/10s of the law and members of this community now possess enough access to carry on.

 

 

 

 

My message is well-intended.

 

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement that I quoted from you above in bold.

 

The probate court will decide if the websites are part of the estate.

 

Even though Bill did not charge a fee for using his websites, he did accept donations from many who paid to use the sites. Not all members contributed. The donations were sufficient to keep the functioning of the websites, allowing Bill to continue his hobby.

 

According to the Internal Revenue Code, hobby income is taxable income.

 

It is possible that Bill reported the donations on his tax returns. Moreover, he might also have had ancillary income from the websites which he might have reported on his income tax returns. Without seeing his prior tax returns, we do not know how Bill treated the hobby income.

 

I assume Bill did everything according to law.

 

Knowingly leaving off the websites from the probate inventory could have very bad consequences. If the court learned of the intentional omission before closing the estate, the person appointed administrator would likely be removed and a court-appointed replacement would occur. There could be additional troubling issues.

 

As a user of this website, I am not part of those included in "we all agree" to omit the websites from probate.

 

Rather than furnish tax law citations, please read the below link that will give you and others an idea of how the Internal Revenue Code applies to hobbies and related income, regardless of what the income is called.

 

https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/hobby-income-taxed#:~:text=The answer: You must pay,if your hobby's a business.

 

I want very much for this website to continue. I also hope to see the transition legal.

 

I appreciate all the hard work of those involved in salvaging the websites. Let not all the hard work be done in vain by filing a false probate inventory.

 

A competent Nevada probate attorney can guide the process through the court.

 

Best of luck.

Edited May 2, 2021 by coriolis888

[mike carey]

To be clear, Mike, I'm not criticizing you for your choice of words. I think you're exactly right. Now is a very good time to be thinking and planning about what's aspirational, and what's fanciful.

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.

[Cooper]

My message is well-intended.

 

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement that I quoted from you above in bold.

 

The probate court will decide if the websites are part of the estate.

 

Even though Bill did not charge a fee for using his websites, he did accept donations from many who paid to use the sites. Not all members contributed. The donations were sufficient to keep the functioning of the websites, allowing Bill to continue his hobby.

 

According to the Internal Revenue Code, hobby income is taxable income.

 

It is possible that Bill reported the donations on his tax returns. Moreover, he might also have had ancillary income from the websites which he might have reported on his income tax returns. Without seeing his prior tax returns, we do not know how Bill treated the hobby income.

 

I assume Bill did everything according to law.

 

Knowingly leaving off the websites from the probate inventory could have very bad consequences. If the court learned of the intentional omission before closing the estate, the person appointed administrator would likely be removed and a court-appointed replacement would occur. There could be additional troubling issues.

 

As a user of this website, I am not part of those included in "we all agree" to omit the websites from probate.

 

Rather than furnish tax law citations, please read the below link that will give you and others an idea of how the Internal Revenue Code applies to hobbies and related income, regardless of what the income is called.

 

https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/hobby-income-taxed#:~:text=The answer: You must pay,if your hobby's a business.

 

I want very much for this website to continue. I also hope to see the transition legal.

 

I appreciate all the hard work of those involved in salvaging the websites. Let not all the hard work be done in vain by filing a false probate inventory.

 

A competent Nevada probate attorney can guide the process through the court.

 

Best of luck.

@coriolis888, A very well written & most informative message with valuable information that hadn’t been discussed before. Definitely something that should be taken into consideration. Thanks for your contribution.

[Guest]

Knowingly leaving off the websites from the probate inventory could have very bad consequences. If the court learned of the intentional omission before closing the estate, the person appointed administrator would likely be removed and a court-appointed replacement would occur. There could be additional troubling issues.

Similarly, my feedback is well intentioned although it might come across as harsh in its frankness

 

There is discussion of the website as an “asset” ...which it is.

 

But, its value as an asset is questionable.

It relied on donations and not revenues to survive. By that definition, it might be a liability. Some could argue that there is a prospective value using a revenue based operating model, but that’s hard to demonstrate unless the one making that argument intends to write the check for that speculative value.

 

“Value” is defined as the price that a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to. If I have a money losing venture, then I’m more motivated to accept anything as a willing seller.

 

If the asset in question has negative cash flow and relies on donations, then a value of $1 may be sufficient. Frankly the best argument for diminution of value occurred with last week’s “wormhole” event resulting in a new IP address that isn’t cached in computers worldwide.

 

So, while I advocate due process and honoring the probate process, I think that the simple solution is best and that is to avoid attributing anything other than a token value to this site.

[+ mature_guy]

My message is well-intended.

 

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement that I quoted from you above in bold.

 

The probate court will decide if the websites are part of the estate.

 

Even though Bill did not charge a fee for using his websites, he did accept donations from many who paid to use the sites. Not all members contributed. The donations were sufficient to keep the functioning of the websites, allowing Bill to continue his hobby.

 

According to the Internal Revenue Code, hobby income is taxable income.

 

It is possible that Bill reported the donations on his tax returns. Moreover, he might also have had ancillary income from the websites which he might have reported on his income tax returns. Without seeing his prior tax returns, we do not know how Bill treated the hobby income.

 

I assume Bill did everything according to law.

 

Knowingly leaving off the websites from the probate inventory could have very bad consequences. If the court learned of the intentional omission before closing the estate, the person appointed administrator would likely be removed and a court-appointed replacement would occur. There could be additional troubling issues.

 

As a user of this website, I am not part of those included in "we all agree" to omit the websites from probate.

 

Rather than furnish tax law citations, please read the below link that will give you and others an idea of how the Internal Revenue Code applies to hobbies and related income, regardless of what the income is called.

 

https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/hobby-income-taxed#:~:text=The answer: You must pay,if your hobby's a business.

 

I want very much for this website to continue. I also hope to see the transition legal.

 

I appreciate all the hard work of those involved in salvaging the websites. Let not all the hard work be done in vain by filing a false probate inventory.

 

A competent Nevada probate attorney can guide the process through the court.

 

Best of luck.

Well thought out response. The probate court in Clark County has public administrators on staff. Regrettably intestate deaths are not that uncommon. There is a good chance that the probate court will assign a staff member to handle the disposition of the estate. The first duty for the administrator will be to find a qualifying next of kin. When that person is found the administrator will assist them in starting the probate process. If an heir is not found there is a good chance of escheat, the estate is frozen and in Nevada potential heirs have six years to file a claim before it reverts to the state. Bill's friends may be able to file for simple summary administration if the overall estate is small, and may have good standing to do so given the circumstances, but if that is refused then this limbo could go on for a while. When Michael died Bill had control of the servers and the tech savvy to keep the site going. Now some very smart and tech savvy gentlemen have the materials to continue to keep the sites going. If a qualifying next of kin is found, perhaps a purchase arrangement can be made, but we should be aware that if the administrator/court catch on to what we do here, they will probably shut us down. Prostitution may be legal in Nevada, but it's not elsewhere and the 8th district probate court would have no interest in facilitating illegal activity.

[lonely_john]

we should be aware that if the administrator/court catch on to what we do here, they will probably shut us down. Prostitution may be legal in Nevada, but it's not elsewhere and the 8th district probate court would have no interest in facilitating illegal activity.

fold this site into the Gay Guides site.

Please excuse my ignorant question.

So, in the unfortunate case that this site doesn't survive,

most of us would be going to Gay Guides?

Any chance that anyone could create a new forum+reviews site from scratch?

That would be a good reason to have at least a sketch of a new structure planned.

Edited May 2, 2021 by lonely_john

[+ stevenkesslar]

So PATIENCE is the word I often find myself stating in M&A work. It takes time to execute things of a big nature. It feels that is appropriate to state that again here. Team Washington is making progress and they have the same desire to have Guy’s hard work continue that folks reading this thread have.

 

I agree with you about patience, Sam. In particular, we have no idea how long it will take for the probate process to work out. That said, it feels like it is appropriate to focus on what is happening on our end.

 

The message I'm getting from Team Washington to us is not "hurry up and wait." It's that now is the time to decide who will own and run both websites. My view is that whether Team Washington ends up being administrator or not, it make enormous sense to do just that.

 

@RadioRob's post right below yours helpfully spells out changes in management and how this place is run that are happening as we speak. So at least as far as who will "run" this website goes, that's actually happening. It also spells out ideas for gradually increasing community involvement, primarily by assisting Cooper in the moderation of the various forums. So it's clear a team of people is working hard to figure out how to run the website on a day-to-day basis.

 

There's a few minor miracles that have happened here worth noting. We are lucky that even though Bill left no will, this ended up in the hands of people he'd built friendships with and exchanged kindnesses with decades ago. That's a minor miracle. My biggest fear was that along the way some technical thing would go wrong and the lights would go out. Like somebody pulling an electric cord out of a wall. Some version of that happened, and somehow @RadioRob rode to the rescue and had the site back up on a different server within less than 24 hours. That's a minor miracle. So it's not like we're being passive.

 

We're also not being passive in terms of weighing in on who should be the administrator. We set a goal of $10,000 in part to help pay for that process, which is likely to be primarily legal. @JEC did an awesome job leading the effort. We exceeded the goal, with @mike carey being the latest person to pull us up to just about $11,000. Thanks, Mike.

 

So my view is that things are going well with one of Bill's two websites. I think we've jumped the gun a bit on the day-to-day management of the place. But even if you view it that way, that's a compliment. But for @RadioRob, we probably wouldn't exist right now.

 

Where we seem to be stuck is that Team Washington has been saying they'd like guidance on who we think should "own" the two websites. The word "own" is an important and precise word. So I'm talking about who will legally "own" the websites. Not moderate a forum as a volunteer, or fact check an escort review.

 

Team Washington also proposed that in their view community ownership might be a good model to consider. Several people here have weighed in about considering a non-profit, an LLC, a corporation. This is where there seems to be an impasse. What some people believe is worthy of consideration, is that we - the community - should explore becoming the owners of either or both websites through some form of community ownership. Others are saying we can't begin to consider such a decision until there is a new owner. This just logically makes no sense to me. Even though it's clear, I'll spell it out. The community can't be the new owner if the community can't decide what to do about the ownership of the site until there is a new owner.

 

Since you brought up corporate M & A, I'll say something a bit biased that isn't meant as an insult to my corporate friends. I know a little bit about corporate bureaucracy. At some point I got the bright idea that Fannie Mae and the private mortgage insurance companies needed to change how they did homeownership. It took about three years and taking over the Fannie Mae headquarters and lots of Congressional hearings under Bill Proxmire's leadership and lots of work with CEOs and EVPS and corporate lawyers. But we ended up with a $1 billion Community Home Buyer's Program. I could give several other examples, but I want to make clear I'm not saying this out of inexperience or ignorance. Corporations can be big ass bureaucracies. In part because as you said people's jobs are on the line if they screw up some process - even when there is not a merger.

 

I'm not sure how much that applies here. We're not talking about an asset worth $1 billion. As @BnaC suggested, it may be worth $1. I'm guessing it will fall under the small estate exemption in Nevada. The individuals chosen as Bill's administrators will determine the value, I believe. The options of ownership are very limited. Facebook won't be buying this website. At this point it seems like the options for this website are @Coolwave35, probably through a corporation, or the community. I personally think both are good options and worthy of exploration.

 

That said, I'll keep repeating what I always said to Bill. "It's your website, so it's your rules." @Charlie is right that it isn't necessarily smart to build enthusiasm around a plan only to find out the new owner has different ideas. In fact, @Coolwave35 has weighed in he doesn't see a need for a steering committee to come up with a plan.

 

So somehow this idea that we, the community, could come up with a plan to own this website as an LLC or non-profit or corporation is stuck in some sort of limbo. Much like the escort review website itself.

 

Speaking of which, do we have any idea who will own that website? And do we care? I'm curious if there are people who think it is better to let it die? I'll make the best argument for that. It probably reduces the political risk that some politician or some law enforcement agency will come up with the bright idea of attacking both websites as "escort-related." As long as Bill owned both sites, that risk was always there. And he knew it.

 

If we do want the review website to continue, which I do, that should be front burner, too. My sense until yesterday was that there was no plan for ownership. I took what @Coolwave35 said repeatedly to mean he didn't want to fund it, or own it. I think he may have changed his mind, but I'm really not sure. At one point he said maybe this is something a group of people here willing to donate money to run it could work on. My impression is he may be thinking of taking this steering committee idea and moving it over to the escort review website side.

 

Whatever the solution for the escort review website is, I think we all know it is way more complicated and involves more risk. Which is why I agree with Team Washington that now is a good time to be planning for how it will be owned and run.

[coriolis888]

 

snip - snip

 

If the asset in question has negative cash flow and relies on donations, then a value of $1 may be sufficient.

 

-

 

Respectfully, your suggestion for a $1.00 value for the websites is insufficient considering the goodwill created over the years the websites have been in existence.

 

By way of example, just since the death of the owner of the websites, more than ten thousand dollars were donated in hopes the hobby websites survive.

 

At this time, we do not have sufficient information to know if the websites created a negative cash flow.

 

The websites have a user following (goodwill) that took many years to develop.

 

When the estate contracts with a competent probate attorney, I recommend that said attorney also be knowledgeable with tax law and how tax laws apply to the websites.

 

In the future, there will be a requirement for tax returns to be filed for the websites assuming "contributions" continue to flow as they did in prior years.

 

It does not matter what word is used for money sent to the website operators. Income is income, as previously shown in my prior post-citation related to IRS requirements. (See this citation I submitted in a prior post):

 

https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/hobby-income-taxed#:~:text=The answer: You must pay,if your hobby's a business.

 

Without contributions or fees from forum users, the site likely will not continue.

 

If money is received from forum users, a tax return will be required to report the income.

 

I doubt any single forum member would want to claim the websites on his or her personal income tax returns.

 

Alternatively, some type of business must be formed to hold the websites.

 

As Benjamin Franklin said many years ago, "in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes,”

 

-

Edited May 2, 2021 by coriolis888

[coriolis888]

 

@coriolis888, A very well written & most informative message with valuable information that hadn’t been discussed before. Definitely, something that should be taken into consideration. Thanks for your contribution.

 

 

Thank you for your kind response.

 

I am just looking out for the future of the forum.

[Lookin]

Please excuse my ignorant question.

So, in the unfortunate case that this site doesn't survive,

most of us would be going to Gay Guides?

 

Not ignorant at all, and thanks for the response. ?

 

I joined this site in 2005 when HooBoy was still alive. And I joined the MER site (later BoyToy and now Gay Guides) a year later in 2006. Over the years, I've posted on both sites, usually alternating a year or two at a time, and depending on the folks who were posting at the time. I've enjoyed both sites.

 

When I joined MER (now Gay Guides), I recall reading that OZ, the owner of MER (and now Gay Guides) had tried to buy the HooBoy site from HooBoy's family. But the family wasn't interested, and Daddy/Guy Fawkes, who was HooBoy's site administrator, stepped in and kept the site running for the past fifteen years.

 

When Daddy passed, and the site was in limbo, it occurred to me that OZ, if he were still interested, could make a bid for the site and fold it into Gay Guides, or even keep it running as the site it is today. OZ has a going concern, OZ has servers, OZ has software, OZ has moderators and OZ has experience operating an escort-related website. At one time, he even had a review site as well as forums.

 

I can't say that today, fifteen years later, OZ would still want to operate this website - either the forums or a review site. All I can say is that the infrastructure and experience are still there. And it would obviate the need for members of this site to raise money, pay bills, form committees, or deal with probate courts. Just as Daddy's forum software was ported to a new off-site server, I'm guessing his forum software could be ported to OZ's server.

 

I sure haven't asked OZ if he'd still be interested, as pages and pages of plans are currently underway to follow a different path. All my post was meant to do is identify a possible path of least resistance.

 

As far as most of us going to the Gay Guides site, should this one cease to exist, that's as easy as just going to that site and starting to post. The only disadvantage is that all our existing content on this site would cease to exist. If OZ were able to port our content over to his server, as @RadioRob was able to do, then our content would be preserved.

 

Any chance that anyone could create a new forum+reviews site from scratch?

That would be a good reason to have at least a sketch of a new structure planned.

 

I had thought of the earlier interest by OZ in this site even before this site went off-line a couple of times last month. But I kept my thoughts to myself, as I saw the interest in this community to either preserve this site as it is, or to create a new one. I decided to throw the idea out there yesterday in response to a comment by @Coolwave35 about the path of least resistance, but I think the train is already rolling to preserve this site or to create a new one.

 

Though I'll keep the possibility of a merge with Gay Guides in the back of my mind in case any of the current plans should hit a snag.

 

[lonely_john]

Without contributions or fees from forum users, the site likely will not continue.

If money is received from forum users, a tax return will be required to report the income.

Great observations.

Could a financing hybrid structure allow the websites to be independent of donations?

If Advertising is not enough there could be a minimal membership cost with additional features for paying members.

In that way, there could be more than 1 stream of income. It's something that Rentmen has been successfully doing for quite some time.

I bet there would be providers, businesses, and brands interested in advertising to gay men with purchase power who frequently visit the websites.

[+ stevenkesslar]

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.

 

You inspired me to do something, Mike. There is a quote I thought I heard or read from Jeb that in my mind is the kind of thing I want on my gravestone. It really said something to me about how you move from "fanciful" (i.e., wishful thinking, stupid dream) to "aspirational" (could we really have a Black President in our lifetime?) to reality.

 

So I've checked for this quote before and could never find it. Yesterday I spent an hour searching, and I found it.

 

Here's the quote, which is how Jeb viewed same sex marriage in 2015:

“What’s interesting is that four years ago [two well known politicians] had the same view that I just expressed to you. It’s thousands of years of culture and history is just being changed at warp speed. It’s hard to fathom why it is this way,” Bush said.

 

I took out the names of the politicians, which you can see if you read the whole article. My point is not about politics. My point is that Gay men know a shitload about what is fanciful and what is not. Because Jeb was right. Gay men (and lots of other people) changed human history, recently. And I helped! In fact, millions of people helped. That's why it happened. Culture changed. Law changed. Religion changed. History changed.

 

In some ways the part I liked the most was the last part. Jeb is right. He does not get it. He does not have a clue how people power works.

 

 

This does impact our discussions. Some people are lawyers, so they are bringing their perspectives as guys who worked on M & A's. I'm bringing perspectives based on lots of experiences both as a paid community organizer and an unpaid volunteer.

 

This debate about forming a steering committee or non-profit board or corporate board for this website is not rocket science. I don't disagree with what @Epigonos said about benevolent dictators. It can be an efficient way to run things. That model worked well enough in the past, if you view it that way. That said, we did just have a near death experience. And we don't know if this website survived yet - legally, at least.

 

The phrase I've planted in my mind is "fun hobby." Is it okay to view this website as a "fun hobby?" First, it's not my call. Second, it probably is. I think that's actually a pretty good bumper sticker for how most people view what they do here. That said, even with this website I know Bill wasn't cavalier about whether a fun hobby could somehow turn into a jail cell. That's not the only risk. But it is the biggest one that could have the most unpleasant consequences.

 

Like you, Mike, my gut reaction is that the ownership model @Coolwave35 is proposing is a workable model to deal with the new legal, technical, political, and other challenges it will inevitably face, just like Bill did. Is it the best model? That's not for me to decide. Like you, I'm a realist.

 

The escort review site is a whole different matter. Right now it is functionally dead. So the immediate challenges are technical and legal. Can it be brought back to life? Can "we" - whatever that means - own it? Do we want to own it? At least in my mind, I can't ponder that without pondering this formula:

 

same sex marriage = decriminalization

 

What I mean is that the "fanciful" or "aspirational" notion is that what actually worked on same sex marriage - gradually, over a long period of time - could work on decriminalization. I had these discussions with Bill, and he had a point of view. He used the escort review site to editorialize in favor of decriminalization. Including articles I wrote that were published in LGBTQ publications he helped me edit. (What a job, right?)

 

Somebody might be wondering what this all has to do with whether I can write or read an escort review? The one word answer is: "Everything." Someone posted above that the review website isn't worth saving unless it can go back to what it used to be. I'd turn that into a question, or - wait for it - an "aspirational" goal. What would it take to restore it to what it used to be? Ironically, @Epigonos actually mentioned one thing. You might want more community involvement. Both within our community, and with allies. You might want to know some good lawyers. By the way, HRC and the ACLU have a lot of them. Bottom line, if it were Bill and we're being blunt a question might be: and how does this help me keep my ass out of jail?

 

I'll tell a story that to me cuts to the heart of our problem with the review website. If you click on that link at the bottom of my posts it's a story from Gay Star News I wrote on decriminalization. The editor at the time was a nice guy, and he wanted me to write more stories like that. I'm quite sure I could have gradually become a known writer on the topic, much like I was a know organizer or activist or escort. That would have been a fun hobby for me. I'm also pretty sure a bunch of both organized and disorganized efforts pushing back on FOSTA/SESTA have had an impact.

 

Shortly after that article came out a client and friend of about 15 years called me and absolutely reamed my ass. His first point was that I was putting my ass on the line - duh! I took that as helpful advice from a friend. His second point was that I was putting his ass on the line. I asked him if he really believed the FBI was going to show up at his door and arrest him based on his association with me. He mentioned he wouldn't want to give money to the legal defense or Jeffrey, which I guess he knew I was raising money for. I made a point of saying I hadn't asked him, and wouldn't.

 

There's two ironies I saw, neither of which I expressed to him. First, were it not for Bill and Michael and that website, we wouldn't have had a "professional" relationship and friendship for what is now 20 years. So it's not clear to me how you conduct escort businesses if you have no idea or will or plan to defend escort websites that allow that business to happen. Second, not that long before this call I was in PV with him and he told me how he had been publicly reamed, front page, in a major newspaper. The paper thought he was an overpaid CEO. I assumed he expected my empathy and support, which he got. I did not point out that if he was worried about being front page news, it might be more useful to look in the mirror rather than go after my willingness to defend my community.

 

I've never felt it made sense to fight a battle I couldn't win. My read at the time was the decriminalization thing wasn't going to happen. So I checked out. Bill wasn't wrong, in my view, to play defense and strip reviews of a lot of their content. If you look at the Rentmen reviews, they are pretty much devoid of content. Yesterday I paid $5000 to a contractor who redid the floors in one of my rental homes. A Rentmen review is so vague it could have been describing his work. That's no doubt what their lawyers suggested.

 

I think this is where we are. If I understand @Coolwave35 right, he is thinking about maybe a shell corporation and maybe a steering committee that would deal with reviews. There's a post in that covers two MOC's that did have, or allegedly did have, sex with an underage escort, one of whom allegedly advertised on some website even though she was underage. So the first thing before one review goes up is we need a process to avoid that. I have no clue how Bill did that, or how much time it took. On the other side of the continuum there needs to be a strategy about how far "we" are willing to go. I can't begin to logically think about that without knowing who's behind the website and who will defend the website if some agency somewhere decides the review goes "too far."

 

Ironically, the client and friend I described above happened to be on a board with Jeb, who he thought was a swell guy. Needless to say, neither would want to be on the board of a male escort review site. I think my client and friend's recommendation would be that it's a massive legal and political albatross. Take the server and break it into bits. Then burn it. Then bury it.

 

I go back to that formula above. If we are going to save it, and consider bringing it back to where was under Michael or Bill pre-Rentboy, it is going to take a group of people really working it through. Not necessarily here, although it should be discussed here. I think owning that website as a "fun hobby" would be inviting danger. If Jeffrey was to blame for his downfall, which I'm not sure is fair, it was based on his own cavalier attitude. the review website should be viewed as both a serious risk and a serious opportunity to move the interests of our community forward. I think we have to decide which one it is.

Edited May 2, 2021 by stevenkesslar

[Guest]

Respectfully, your suggestion for a $1.00 value for the websites is insufficient considering the goodwill created over the years the websites have been in existence.

 

By way of example, just since the death of the owner of the websites, more than ten thousand dollars were donated in hopes the hobby websites survive.

 

At this time, we do not have sufficient information to know if the websites created a negative cash flow.

 

The websites have a user following (goodwill) that took many years to develop.

 

When the estate contracts with a competent probate attorney, I recommend that said attorney also be knowledgeable with tax law and how tax laws apply to the websites.

 

In the future, there will be a requirement for tax returns to be filed for the websites assuming "contributions" continue to flow as they did in prior years.

 

It does not matter what word is used for money sent to the website operators. Income is income, as previously shown in my prior post-citation related to IRS requirements. (See this citation I submitted in a prior post):

 

https://www.creditkarma.com/tax/i/hobby-income-taxed#:~:text=The answer: You must pay,if your hobby's a business.

 

Without contributions or fees from forum users, the site likely will not continue.

 

If money is received from forum users, a tax return will be required to report the income.

 

I doubt any single forum member would want to claim the websites on his or her personal income tax returns.

 

Alternatively, some type of business must be formed to hold the websites.

 

As Benjamin Franklin said many years ago, "in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes,”

 

-

Simplicity works when interested parties don’t stir things up with a lot of questions making it complex.

 

So, it looks like complex it shall be.

 

BTW, the value of “goodwill” is only supportable to the extent that it creates a sustainable income stream. Income can be either cash flow or reversion value on sale. A lot of companies create “goodwill” by overpaying for something but then have to write it off when the assumed run rates or take out values don’t materialize.

 

I repeat…simple is best, but it often requires an articulate business case with stakeholders willing to…well…hmmm…

wink wink nod nod…

 

I’ve made my point. I’ll shut up.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I would like to see the review website brought back to life, but only if the reviews were allowed to contain the information that was allowed before the government intervened (maybe locate them overseas?) - the reviews now contain very little useful information. I found the the review site by searching "escort reviews" when I first started to explore this hobby, and I loved reading the reviews! And the review site lead me to the forums. I don't think I ever would have found this community without the review site.

 

So let me ask a view questions spring boarding off this. I think its actually quite important to understand these things in order to develop some plan for the review website's survival, let alone restoration to happier times under either Michael or Bill.

 

First, is it correct that most people, or many people, got here via the reviews? I know I did.

 

When I was raising money for Bill he showed me some websites that either are the ones I've linked to, or are similar, showing monthly traffic and also showing which other websites people come from and go to. So at that time, like five years ago, I know there was a lot of traffic between the two websites. My assumption, pretty much based on what I just said, is that the inevitable result of that website going away is that this website will shrink. In fact, the traffic has shrunk since Bill died. I have no idea whether that's seasonal, or an omen of things to come. And I don't know that people really care whether we get 100,000 or 200,000 or 20,000 visitors a month.

 

Second, do most or many people feel the reviews in the last few years "contain very little useful information." I barely looked at the site for years. But when those changes happened I heard a chorus of "this sucks" from clients. That said, as someone well reviewed who connected with almost all my best clients on that site, I don't know that it would have worked different if the reviews had been skimpier. I still would have had a lot of reviews with some type of positive ratings. Again, that's what Rentmen does. And in the past there's been much discussion about how Rentmen reviews can be gamed.

 

Third, how do people feel about the risk/reward continuum? The risk of that website is a lot higher. That was certainly true for Bill, since he wuld have been the target of any action. I know at least one former Escort of the Year who is worried about whether pictures of his face are on some server the State of Nevada might get. So in theory you could argue anyone who had any participation in that website in any way had some theoretical risk. (It should be noted the same concern was felt with Rentboy, and nothing ever came of the Feds seizing the servers to my knowledge.)

 

There's a simple logic problem here everyone can get. The further that Bill went in the direction of things that could be perceived as crossing the line with FOSTA/SESTA, the more likely the entire website went away. So in some situations something is better than nothing. Especially when you are playing defense rather than offense. That said, give me a pen and I could take the Rentboy complaint and change the vocabulary to describe the review site. Arguably, the entire site crossed the line with SESTA/FOSTA. I always felt one thing that protected that website was Bill himself. Why would anyone go after an elderly Gay man who had no assets and made no money off the site?

 

All this is fodder for how I would strategize around the future of that website, if there is to be one. But I think it would be helpful to articulate perceptions about how that site worked and whether it is in fact worth saving.

[+ Orin]

You inspired me to do something, Mike. There is a quote I thought I heard or read from Jeb that in my mind is the kind of thing I want on my gravestone. It really said something to me about how you move from "fanciful" (i.e., wishful thinking, stupid dream) to "aspirational" (could we really have a Black President in our lifetime?) to reality.

 

Here's another way of saying that. It's on the 'Man in the Moon' Peter Max poster that commemorated the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969:

 

"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow." -- Robert Goddard

 

BTW, Deb is en route to Las Vegas to see about gaining control of the DNS info about the original domain name for this place, so @RadioRob can make it point to wherever this site lives, and the redirect from the old server will no longer be needed. None of this changes the ownership of the site, or affects whether it is listed by whoever the court assigns to be Executor or Administrator as part of the estate.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Orin

[+ stevenkesslar]

BTW, Deb is en route to Las Vegas to see about gaining control of the DNS info about the original domain name for this place, so @RadioRob can make it point to wherever this site lives, and the redirect from the old server will no longer be needed. None of this changes the ownership of the site, or affects whether it is listed by whoever the court assigns to be Executor or Administrator as part of the estate.

 

Thanks to Deb!

 

Since you mentioned domain names, here's a few things that struck me reading what @mature_guy said above. I emphatically agree with him. The more a judge or a public administrator on staff looks into this, the more likely that it falls apart for the reason @mature_guy stated at the end of his post.

 

A site called "m4m-forum.org" on any form describing assets sounds like a website where Gay guys talk about stuff. If for any reason they pull up the site and start browsing around, who knows? All of this is why flying under the small estate exemption seems best if possible.

 

A website called "daddysreviews.com" could invite curiosity. Hmmm. What kind of reviews? As you know if you try to pull up the website you just get the Daddy icon and an error message. If you Google "Daddys Reviews" you get all kinds of links to escort review pages that also give you error messages. As an example, I noticed that on the first search page there was an escort in Las Vegas listed. So I Googled his name and "Las Vegas" and immediately came up with a link to the website of a "VIP International Gay Escort." I can't think of a good reason we'd want anyone curious going down this rabbit hole based on a website name on an asset form. If there is an option others than "daddysreviews.com" to list on estate forms that could be something to consider.

 

Just so it doesn't sound like I'm writing a spy novel, I subscribe to the theory that this may be how Rentboy went down. We know they sent DHS an application for a visa. I can visualize some DHS staff typing in rentboy.com and going, "WTF?" I'm not offering ignorant legal advice. Like @mature_guy I'm just flagging this as a detail to consider when the time comes to be filling out any forms.

 

What @mature_guy wrote really nailed why Deb or you having some sort of standing to administer the estate or make a claim on assets is likely the quickest and best outcome.

 

And while I was Googling based on what @mature_guy wrote and poking around about Nevada probate, I kept reading about Medicaid. Do you know whether Bill will or may have claims by Medicaid/HHS? It seems like that could have a significant impact on how this plays out.

 

If HHS has a claim, Item 6 on the state's Small Affidavit Claim Form seems descriptive of how this may go, whether the small estate exemption applies or not. Unless you know otherwise it seems like there's a very good chance HHS will be wanting a slice of whatever pie there is. In a much earlier post @Charlie referred to Medicaid wanting any life insurance after his Mom died. I've had that happen when tenants made Medicaid claims. Medicaid then tried to see if my property insurer would reimburse tenant medical expenses - which they won't. In this situation, HHS could have a valid claim - assuming there is anything to be had. If HHS makes a claim, alongside Bill's friends for funeral expenses, there's likely nothing left. It could play out in several ways. But hopefully it would mitigate against the court dragging things out forever looking for kin since they're not going to get anything anyways.

[+ Orin]

And while I was Googling based on what @mature_guy wrote and poking around about Nevada probate, I kept reading about Medicaid. Do you know whether Bill will or may have claims by Medicaid/HHS? It seems like that could have a significant impact on how this plays out.

 

He was indeed on Medicaid, so they would have a claim on assets he had that are worth anything, which he didn't. A cursory glance ought to tell them there's not much blood to be squeezed from that stone. Rather than spending more than there is to be gotten, they might just move on to bigger fish. If they come looking, he ran a couple of unprofitable websites that didn't even run ads. If they were to sell them, I suppose someone (!) could offer them a pittance for the domain names, based on the free internet appraisal values of like $100 for one and $250 for the other and quietly make off with them.

[+ stevenkesslar]

He was indeed on Medicaid, so they would have a claim on assets he had that are worth anything, which he didn't. A cursory glance ought to tell them there's not much blood to be squeezed from that stone. Rather than spending more than there is to be gotten, they might just move on to bigger fish. If they come looking, he ran a couple of unprofitable websites that didn't even run ads. If they were to sell them, I suppose someone (!) could offer them a pittance for the domain names, based on the free internet appraisal values of like $100 for one and $250 for the other and quietly make off with them.

 

As you said, hopefully they move on to bigger fish. I'm reacting in part to posts by @Lucky and @mature_guy essentially saying this can take forever, especially if there are no kin involved. In the abstract, I could see how HHS and a huge Medicaid bill could either slow things down or speed things up. In reality, we'll know how it impacts things when we know.

[+ Lucky]

Whew! I have finally finished reading @stevenkesslar's posts from yesterday, and it is 5:30 in the morning. Well, truthfully, I just got up and I have skimmed his posts. I didn't realize that he and Bill were so close.

 

I liked @Lookin's post about Totally Oz. I have an idea that he is not interested, but who knows what is going on behind the scenes.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Whew! I have finally finished reading @stevenkesslar's posts from yesterday,

 

Why would you read what that idiot say? He's so god damn verbose!

[+ stevenkesslar]

Whew! I have finally finished reading @stevenkesslar's posts from yesterday, and it is 5:30 in the morning. Well, truthfully, I just got up and I have skimmed his posts. I didn't realize that he and Bill were so close.

 

I liked @Lookin's post about Totally Oz. I have an idea that he is not interested, but who knows what is going on behind the scenes.

 

Lucky you. And here's more.

 

You are a good one on this topic, @Lucky, since you've spent a lot of time over there in Oz. The basic questions are these: Why did some things work better there and some things not? And how does that influence what happens moving forward?

 

I read @Lookin's posts, too. My main reaction was this. Why would Oz bother to or need to buy or merge this website and Gay Guides? In terms of the forums, they both more or less do the same thing. Lots of people go back and forth. I haven't signed up or posted over there since its transition. But eventually I will when what is happening over here settles down.

 

My view is it's the same community, and it's a community I've been part of for 20 years now. Oz and Bill seem to have at least been pleasant with each other. I only met Oz once, years ago, at one of @Oliver's parties. I think I spent about half an hour or so talking to Bill and Oz together. As owners of somewhat rival websites, I thought they were pleasant and courteous to each other. Even if they weren't best friends.

 

So if this forum had melted down the day @RadioRob saved it, speaking only for myself it would have been incredibly easy to move over to the party at Oz's house. That said, why bother? For whatever reason, a lot of people like it here.

 

I'm going to answer @Orin's question about the review site separately but the main point I'll make probably 5 times, which to me is a really key point, is that my escort career worked as well as it did because the escort review site attracted the type of individuals I wanted to be hired by. There is something about the kind of guys who like to write reviews and debate reviews and read reviews before they hire people that made them great clients. So some of the relationships lasted 10 or 15 or 20 years. And in some cases moved from business relationships into friendships. In an environment like that the escorts that thrived were similarly thoughtful people. So some of them became my close friends.

 

All the same things are what make the forums on both websites work. It's kind of amusing, because while there is some bitching about "why do we need a community planning process?" what we've actually been doing here since Bill died is a sloppy version of that. And it's working pretty well. People are donating and volunteering. New leaders are emerging. Lots of thoughtful people are saying lots of thoughtful things. And a sort of consensus is maybe starting to form. It all validates what I thought I knew about "the community" I've been a part of for 20 years.

 

If the same thing had happened over at Oz's website, I think it would have gone down pretty much the same way. Oz is more of a "we're all adults, and we can figure it out" kind of guy. Bill was actually more of a benevolent dictator. Somebody you and I both know already weighed in and said sometimes not overly benevolent. My perception is the driver is the community, not who runs the website. So even though Oz and Bill were very different people and leaders, in my mind it hasn't really created two different communities. Because the community is, in effect, the driver. And the two communities that each website attracts, to my knowledge, are basically the same.

 

The short way to say all that, in terms of the forums, is that it all pretty much works and nothing big really needs to change. I take what most people are saying as a reaffirmation of that. Whether @Coolwave35 or a corporation owns it is important. But what we've been reinforcing in various ways is this is really the community's website. @Coolwave35 actually suggested it is kind of ours legally, and got some thoughtful pushback. @RadioRob is now in my pantheon of Gay heroes because he did some really good shit. And he's been really explicit about how he wants to set this up to make it the community's, not his, in a way Bill didn't. I think that's very wise, and I am grateful.

 

With the escort reviews, it is pretty much the opposite. It all sucks, and it has kind of sucked. Some of the endless bitching and moaning I've heard in private for years is being reflected here. @Epigonos was being too kind. There was one time when he was relating a very negative discussion he had about the review site with someone else I know well. Honestly, I was just laughing my ass off for about 20 minutes. I don't think I've given away any private confidence because he already posted the core of what he thinks. My point is that this is not a new problem.

 

The escort review thing never really worked at Oz's Male Escort Review before it became BoyToy and now Gay Guides. I'm not sure why. Do you have a perspective on that? I had some reviews over there. But in terms of my business it was nothing compared to Daddy's Revews and this site, where I ultimately had about 90 reviews. I think some of that was random fate. Bill had the server, so he had the advantage. It's a bit like what's happening now. People are used to being here, so they stay here. My point is that if there were something Oz could buy and do some good with, it would be the male escort review website. I'm not really sure if @Coolwave35 wants to buy it or not, because he's said kind of no and kind of maybe.

 

The main problem with the escort review site is it does stuff that is considered to be criminal, or could be criminal, by some people. Just to be clear, I didn't say it does anything criminal. I don't think it does. People can think whatever they want to think. But when the people thinking it is criminal work for DOJ or DHS or the FBI or ths US Congress, that's a potential problem. (See Rentboy and Backpage and FOSTA/SESTA.) That drives a "keep your head down and be careful" mentality, which is completely understandable.

 

So people might want to be able to write about how they got together with this great top and he came all over their face and it was fabulous. If you are talking about what you did with your husband on your birthday, I think that's free speech. But if the context is you were writing that in a male escort review, which people did write about when Michael ran it and I first started getting reviews, that would now be a big problem. Sensibly, Bill didn't particularly care to go to jail, or more likely just live with the risk that might happen, just so somebody could say what they want to say. That said, I'll keep repeating. Take the Rentboy complaint and edit it a bit and that could have been the case against Bill, had they wanted to try.

 

To summarize my rant, my simple bumper sticker view is this forum works best when people can be themselves and say what they want to say. Life in Oz is good, for the same reason. It's a big problem with the escort review site, because what I hear, and have heard for years, is that people can't say what they want to say. If the people I knew mostly enjoyed having sex with kids or animals, this would be a problem. But they don't. So in the world I actually live in, it's not a real problem. Other than that it is perceived as criminal, or potentially criminal, by people with power. Which is a big problem.

 

This is not totally unlike the idea that it is not legal to be Gay. Or it is not legal to be a Gay man who wants to marry a Gay man. We have dealt with those problems, as a community, with remarkable and historic success. I'm faithful that we could do the same with this problem, if we chose. But this is the big problem we face, I think. So far, neither Oz nor Bill were able to solve it. As an objective fact, we are worse off than when Michael started the review website.

Edited May 3, 2021 by stevenkesslar

[+ honcho]

My experience tells me not-for profit endeavors overseen and operated by a loose-knit committee just don't seem to work well. I've always thought that rule by a benevolent dictator has the best chance of success....decisions made quickly, easily, usually responsibly....just sayin'....

 

This is just not true. I have friends who are members of the board of directors at not-for-profit organizations with years in operation and growing every year, and there is not 1 single person making all the decisions. I think the expression 'benevolent dictator' is an oxymoron. If anyone would like to look at examples of outcomes under a dictatorship they should be looking at the current situation in Cuba or North Korea.

 

I am a member of the board of directors [10 directors] of a community orchestra that has been going on for 53 years. I ran for board of another community musical group recently making known my disagreement with their policies and was not elected, but in no way could I say that either is a dictatorship and both seem to be pretty efficient in achieving their missions. So I heartily agree with lonely_john.

Edited May 4, 2021 by honcho