It's happend

[AD720]

Originally Posted by md4958

What would make you guys think he cares about this place? He got what he wanted... our memberships that CANNOT be deleted. That is the only thing that matters to him, because that is the only thing the advertisers are gonna see.

Do you think that any of them are gonna be going through threads and reading about the good old days from disgruntled members???

To John Caputo we were always just numbers. I have a feeling that in 6 months youll see his daily post count get smaller and smaller until he isnt even logging in anymore.

The one thing I find disgusting is that he is still taking member donations, as Puff.com is now a for-profit organization. The ads arent enough $$ for him I guess. And I feel sympathy for any member that is actually still willing to donate to that site.

I also wonder how much longer the "active member" count is going to be shown?

I had a conversation with the new owner about this very situation.

I made the point that it is fine to take money from people but don't sit there and say that it is a "donation" when the money is going to what is explicitly a for-profit entity. I call a spade a spade and I said so. Being a supporter of PBS is different than subscribing to HBO. I made it very clear that it was not about the money for me but the "donation" seems like a double-dip and misleading.

I was basically told that: 1, they were not changing anything regarding the site supporter situation, 2, CS was a very profitable site (same as Puff) and that the site supporter donations at CS were not really supporting the site, just gravy and Paul was making a lot of money and 3, that $20 every six months "is not going to make or break him/the site".


After number 3 I pretty much .

I hope that clears it up for everyone.

I can not wait until the 18th when I will no longer have a "Site Supporter" tag under my nick.


Much respect for the Mods over there but I do not like the man behind the curtain.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by AD720

I had a conversation with the new owner about this very situation.

I made the point that it is fine to take money from people but don't sit there and say that it is a "donation" when the money is going to what is explicitly a for-profit entity. I call a spade a spade and I said so. Being a supporter of PBS is different than subscribing to HBO. I made it very clear that it was not about the money for me but the "donation" seems like a double-dip and misleading.

I was basically told that: 1, they were not changing anything regarding the site supporter situation, 2, CS was a very profitable site (same as Puff) and that the site supporter donations at CS were not really supporting the site, just gravy and Paul was making a lot of money and 3, that $20 every six months "is not going to make or break him/the site".


After number 3 I pretty much .

I hope that clears it up for everyone.

I can not wait until the 18th when I will no longer have a "Site Supporter" tag under my nick.


Much respect for the Mods over there but I do not like the man behind the curtain.

Wow!!!
Not surprising but................Wow!!!

FWIW.. my subscription to Donate to ClubStogie expired in December and has now gone the way of the Dinosaur. I had no problems donating to Paul to help fray the costs of bandwidth and hardware.

My thoughts were that the donations/subscriptions program however you want to perceive them hasn't changed, but the premise has changed.

ClubStogie $20 donation every six months. Paul said thank you by giving some additional functionality to ClubStogie for your donation, i.e. radio, poker, larger PM box, maybe some others. But you weren't paying or subscribing to these functions.

Now it seems like it's a $20 subscription/donation keep the added functionality.

The features were never the reason I donated to Clubstogie. Easy enough to understand why donations are no longer necesary unless you want the added features.

[AAlmeter]

I wrote a very lengthy post on Puffer.com in reply to Dave's post criticizing Jon's claim that his member was bigger than Dave's, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. Let us all talk a moment to bow and celebrate this rarity.


I just do not understand the demonizing of Jon for trying to make a profit. He may be an asshole. He may not even have access to 827 boxes of aged cuban cigars (and thats only at his office humidor!!!). But profit was the chief motivator on both sides. Paul left because the site he created (as a hobby) and helped grow (as a passion) had taken to much of his time from his friends and family. It became a job.

I'm sure the reason it didn't become his sole source of employment was simply because it didn't have the pay and benefits per hour he put in. Plain and simple, he left because it didn't have the profitability.

On the other side of the fence stood Jon, who thought he could take his time and effort, and make it profitable.


I don't see how we can blame either man....solely from the perspective of being the site's admin and paying for it/making a profit. Other than that, despite my time on CS, I know neither Paul nor Jon well enough to comment. But Tom's still a DB...or so I've heard.

[AD720]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

I wrote a very lengthy post on Puffer.com in reply to Dave's post criticizing Jon's claim that his member was bigger than Dave's, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. Let us all talk a moment to bow and celebrate this rarity.


I just do not understand the demonizing of Jon for trying to make a profit. He may be an asshole. He may not even have access to 827 boxes of aged cuban cigars (and thats only at his office humidor!!!). But profit was the chief motivator on both sides. Paul left because the site he created (as a hobby) and helped grow (as a passion) had taken to much of his time from his friends and family. It became a job.

I'm sure the reason it didn't become his sole source of employment was simply because it didn't have the pay and benefits per hour he put in. Plain and simple, he left because it didn't have the profitability.

On the other side of the fence stood Jon, who thought he could take his time and effort, and make it profitable.


I don't see how we can blame either man....solely from the perspective of being the site's admin and paying for it/making a profit. Other than that, despite my time on CS, I know neither Paul nor Jon well enough to comment. But Tom's still a DB...or so I've heard.

My issue is not that there is a profit being made. My issue is that the subscription fee was/is being passed off as a donation.


PS - it looks like your invisible ink has expired.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by AD720

PS - it looks like your invisible ink has expired.

Son of a...! I donated $3k to Tom...he told me that invisible ink would last a lifetime!

Originally Posted by AD720

I had a conversation with the new owner about this very situation.

I made the point that it is fine to take money from people but don't sit there and say that it is a "donation" when the money is going to what is explicitly a for-profit entity. I call a spade a spade and I said so. Being a supporter of PBS is different than subscribing to HBO. I made it very clear that it was not about the money for me but the "donation" seems like a double-dip and misleading.

I was basically told that: 1, they were not changing anything regarding the site supporter situation, 2, CS was a very profitable site (same as Puff) and that the site supporter donations at CS were not really supporting the site, just gravy and Paul was making a lot of money and 3, that $20 every six months "is not going to make or break him/the site".


After number 3 I pretty much .

I hope that clears it up for everyone.

I can not wait until the 18th when I will no longer have a "Site Supporter" tag under my nick.


Much respect for the Mods over there but I do not like the man behind the curtain.

This kind of stuff makes an ugly read for me... it's disheartening to say the least.

[AD720]

Originally Posted by JKim

This kind of stuff makes an ugly read for me... it's disheartening to say the least.

Certainly not my intention to put you down or make you feel bad in anyway. Like I said I really like ALL of the mods over there. I just thought that people who are "site supporters" have a right to know.

PM Sent BTW...

Originally Posted by AD720

Certainly not my intention to put you down or make you feel bad in anyway. Like I said I really like ALL of the mods over there. I just thought that people who are "site supporters" have a right to know.

PM Sent BTW...

Andrew.. it wasn't taken in that light.

It's just kind of an ugly animal that's all....

[replicant_argent]

Originally Posted by JKim

Andrew.. it wasn't taken in that light.

It's just kind of an ugly animal that's all....

You guys as mods are doing a lot of work between all of you for a site that few seem to care too much for. I respect you and pity you all at the same time, (respectfully also.) I have created some of that work at times, but the fact remains that we can all see what is happening.

I am not sure I would hang in there and work for free for a place that is losing it's soul. As it becomes more and more commercial, I would think that the aquarists running that fish tank should be treated with a little monetary respect, for allowing the clicking to continue to take place relatively uninterrupted into Jons coffers.