Changes to the forum

[french frank]

BTW, what is the provenance of your avatar ff? It’s a rather charming image.

It's The Turk, a chess-playing automaton. I think there are similar ones around but this one was in the Café Roland in Bratislava.

I don't think this is as good a one as mine As you see, his pipe is in his right hand here, as I turned the photo so that the Turk is looking inwards, keeping an eye on the forum!

[Dave2002]

I am adding my belated thanks, and seconds, thirds etc. to the others who who have expressed gratitude for your efforts over the years.

I hope you won't fade into complete obscurity and will at least visit the forum from time to time, as indeed you seem to be doing right now, though if you want to simply disappear that's OK too.

I hope the forum will continue for a long while yet. Somehow, though perhaps not always R3 or even music related, there does seem to be a wealth of information and expertise in these pages, and also help when needed.

Anyway, thanks for everything ff - enjoy your less hectic time away. Now to keep those new hosts in order ....!!!

[khiiutvhjui]

So is FR3 winding up because it has achieved its objectives?

[edashtav]

Ave atque vale.

[french frank]

So is FR3 winding up because it has achieved its objectives?

I don't think we would claim that, though the aims as set out never had an end goal = victory:

1. We will engage with the BBC and question the policies which we consider jeopardise Radio 3's obligation to deliver a high quality service of classical music, spoken arts and a range of intelligent cultural coverage; we will convey listener concerns to BBC management.

2. We will press Radio 3 to be distinctive, and to maintain high artistic and intellectual standards; to recognise that the content will by its nature attract small audiences; and to acknowledge the necessity to build an audience for the content rather than alter the content to expand the audience.

In one sense, you could say that we've done that for 14 years. It was never part of the expectation that we would bend the BBC to the will of our constituency of listeners.

[Lat-Literal]

Have just spotted this thread, french frank, and I wish you all the best for the future.

I regard you as the natural heir of Ellen Wilkinson..........."A Third Programme Nation".

Those who perpetually rally for modernism on the grounds that the BBC is too Reithian misunderstand that it was her vision historically that was the substantive opposition to Reith.

The ending of the forum, much as I understand the arguments that were considered, would have been a bit like abandoning initiatives on tackling climate change.

One further thing that is worth considering is who would step in re the technical side should Mark ever be temporarily absent or have any need to step down?

Comment:

With hindsight, the distinctions between FoR3 and the forum were always made clear but they took a couple of years in some of our minds to be fully comprehended and accepted. That was largely based on the way in which many of us simply moved across from the old BBC forum. From my own perspective, this forum coincided with my leaving employment and I'm really not sure what life would have been like without it although I know it wouldn't have been especially good. With an eye to the future, there are certain points to be made.

First, while there will always rightly be some impetus in various places - especially in the BBC - to reach out to younger generations, it is probably to be expected that the principal appeal of BBC R3 will not be to the young. That, though, doesn't mean that as earlier generations step down R3 should be less appealing. Rather, it seems to me that additional people are either attracted to it in middle age or they are able at that point in life to consider it more. One sees comments frequently from contributors here about them coming up to retirement (often around the age of 50) or having just gone into retirement. There is no reason why some in their 30s today should not on getting to that stage in a couple of decades time make a similar transition involving R3. Here, the ongoing new forum should play a significant part as a gateway, not least as radio will become more closely linked to IT.

Next, for all of the previously mentioned separation from FoR3 itself, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves why this forum existed in the first place. It was essentially because of the government cuts which led to the BBC scrapping the old message boards. We were advised by some that Facebook and latterly Twitter would be adequate replacements. They were - but only for those who wished to promote programmes having been responsible for them and members of the public who were content with a chit-chat on sporadic items. While it - and FoR3 - may have been held at arm's length, I believe this forum has been a consistent reminder of the serious manner in which many view the maintenance of a standard for BBC radio services, represented by R3 but with wider connotations, and indeed of those services themselves. That it will continue to be a R3 forum is right and it is in absolutely no doubt.

But nor is there doubt that there has never been and will not ever, surprisingly, be an equivalent for R4 and other meaningful parts of the BBC Radio network. For the sake of R3 and of them all, I think we should aim to produce some sort of outline paper on R3 for submission at least every six months which highlights what is right in our opinion and what is wrong. This could be done with the opening of a thread at those times and a constructive emphasis on content and what is happening at RAJAR rather than on the sort of critique that is focussed on personalities. That slots in neatly with people at the retirement age often seeking something that feels a bit more meaningful than just conversation - a halfway house between work and real retirement - and it will, I feel, help guarantee the future of the forum as something that is distinctive from the systemic talking shops elsewhere on the net.

[Old Grumpy]

So, we are now the New Radio 3 Forum. I note the For3.org website still exists and the Forum heading the top still links to this forum. Will the New Radio 3 Forum be getting a new URL?

FF, if you are reading, I ask this not in a confrontational manner, but merely for information.

Many thanks for all you have done in establishing and curating this forum over the years.

OG

[french frank]

Those in the know will know that there were long discussions over this. I had already announced that this forum would close, probably along with the whole FoR3 website, but I proposed setting up a new (free) forum in parallel so that people would have time, if they wished to move to the new one. But that would mean the end of this one.

Could the url be changed? The problem is that Friends of Radio 3 holds the lifetime licence for the vBulletin software. To move this forum to a new server would signal that a different organisation was taking the forum over - and if they allowed the originl software to be shunted around the internet between different groups for a one-off payment, they wouldn't make much money! An

Oops, back later - I've been called for.

So, we are now the New Radio 3 Forum. I note the For3.org website still exists and the Forum heading the top still links to this forum. Will the New Radio 3 Forum be getting a new URL?

FF, if you are reading, I ask this not in a confrontational manner, but merely for information.

Many thanks for all you have done in establishing and curating this forum over the years.

OG

[french frank]

Back again. Further possibilities are now being considered.

From FoR3's point of view, the main aim was to make it clear that if the members are taking over the running of the forum, there should be no suggestion that it retains the oversight of Friends of Radio 3, who set up the Terms & Conditions and House Rules in light of the connection between the two. The forum therefore becomes free to change the rules as it suits them. It did seem that, on the whole, the for3.org address would not be enough to make everyone instantly think "Friends of Radio 3".

At least it seemed a better solution than starting afresh with a new forum and ditching this one.

[Barbirollians]

It seems that there has been a seamless transition- we hardly need to change urls and the like which may mean lots of people, especially those who do not log on all that frequently would disappear .

Perhaps it might be a good idea to edit the opening post so it is absolutely clear what has happened and that we are carrying on just with FF taking a well deserved back seat with her glass of posh claret .

[Lat-Literal]

Back again. Further possibilities are now being considered.

From FoR3's point of view, the main aim was to make it clear that if the members are taking over the running of the forum, there should be no suggestion that it retains the oversight of Friends of Radio 3, who set up the Terms & Conditions and House Rules in light of the connection between the two. The forum therefore becomes free to change the rules as it suits them. It did seem that, on the whole, the for3.org address would not be enough to make everyone instantly think "Friends of Radio 3".

At least it seemed a better solution than starting afresh with a new forum and ditching this one.

But does this mean that FoR3's "winding down" is (a) it will not be in need of any forum as per post one and significantly reduces what it does in the light of improvements to R3 after 14 years if not everything that is wanted or (b) it will not continue as an organisation? Because if it is the latter, I'd oppose any fundamental change to the terms and conditions of this forum and promote the idea of an additional role as in my previous post but if it is the former that would be somewhat confusing with two light lobby groups running in parallel?

[french frank]

But does this mean that FoR3's "winding down" is (a) it will not be in need of any forum as per post one and significantly reduces what it does in the light of improvements to R3 after 14 years if not everything that is wanted or (b) it will not continue as an organisation? Because if it is the latter, I'd oppose any fundamental change to the terms and conditions of this forum and promote the idea of an additional role as in my previous post but if it is the former that would be somewhat confusing with two light lobby groups running in parallel?

Matter still open as to exactly what the Friends might continue to do, if anything. That's a separate matter.

The forum was never intended to be any sort of 'lobby group', light or otherwise. It was intended purely as a rescue project for the BBC messageboards, when the BBC gave a week's notice that they were closing the R3 boards. Although no one would ever have imagined that people posting on the BBC boards were somehow the embodiment of the BBC, they did - frustratingly - think that everything said here was somehow the words and thinking of Friends of Radio 3. Our intention was simply to offer a space for forum members to carry on talking: we set rules because we didn't want an independent group getting us a bad name (worse than the press had given us). We did suffer from the sometimes aggressive and abusive postings.

[Lat-Literal]

Matter still open as to exactly what the Friends might continue to do, if anything. That's a separate matter.

The forum was never intended to be any sort of 'lobby group', light or otherwise. It was intended purely as a rescue project for the BBC messageboards, when the BBC gave a week's notice that they were closing the R3 boards. Although no one would ever have imagined that people posting on the BBC boards were somehow the embodiment of the BBC, they did - frustratingly - think that everything said here was somehow the words and thinking of Friends of Radio 3. Our intention was simply to offer a space for forum members to carry on talking: we set rules because we didn't want an independent group getting us a bad name (worse than the press had given us). We did suffer from the sometimes aggressive and abusive postings.

OK - so we can become something of a lobby group in the future.

Thanks.

The principal concerns are (a) not to provide contradictory competition with an ongoing FoR3 and (b) to ensure that something of the latter's objectives is pursued if it goes.

It is, of course, true that FoR3 drew extensively in its submissions on a range of (free) comments/information provided by members on this forum.*

Post 84 speaks about that "connection" when the persistent message to us was that there was no connection, latterly "accepted" as I stated in my earlier post.

*eg "Friends of Radio 3, 20 September at 07:58, Facebook: "Currently compiling some stats to explain the reason why the revamped Essential Classics might be getting a less than enthusiastic reception on the Radio 3 Forum. Meanwhile, this seemed a possibility worth considering: (Comment inserted here from Richard Tarleton on this very forum on 15 Sept)"

One could speak of many contributions on Rajar etc (including mine) which would suggest that the forum was paid for not wholly out of charity but to provide support for a cause. To present it on and off as having always been merely a place for people to "talk" may well not be aggressive or abusive but it would be a misrepresentation of the relationship involved.

Given that contributions from well-meaning and fairly like minded people have often been used, it seems to me contributors deserve clarity when the time is right on how they can pursue the objectives many have always held. FoR3's future - "that's a separate matter" - I am sure it is and yet it isn't. A similar forum approach might only be right if it ceased.

But in view of the absence of comment in the past six hours - it could, I guess, run in parallel.

What I utterly reject is any insinuation that:

(a) when the forum went wrong it had a bad impact on FoR3 although forum members were advised they were just "separate"

plus

(b) when it went right contributors weren't being used to support FoR3, nor did they have any useful, connected contribution.

[Old Grumpy]

Back again. Further possibilities are now being considered.

From FoR3's point of view, the main aim was to make it clear that if the members are taking over the running of the forum, there should be no suggestion that it retains the oversight of Friends of Radio 3, who set up the Terms & Conditions and House Rules in light of the connection between the two. The forum therefore becomes free to change the rules as it suits them. It did seem that, on the whole, the for3.org address would not be enough to make everyone instantly think "Friends of Radio 3".

At least it seemed a better solution than starting afresh with a new forum and ditching this one.

Thanks for the clarification, FF. I am quite happy to carry on using this exellent forum as it is, with the same URL.

Never did like change...

Old Grumpy

[Lat-Literal]

Thanks for the clarification, FF. I am quite happy to carry on using this exellent forum as it is, with the same URL.
Old Grumpy

With a subscription fee?