Richard Society Forum

I have read in the "Bulletin" that the Society is no longer interested in this Forum. Appearantly it is too oldfashioned in the Society's opinion and "there also was a distinct decline in the use of the Forum".I for my part would miss the interesting and often comprehensive discussions here should the forum be closed.Does anyone know what will happen to this forum in the future? What do you all think about this announcement?Eva

The forum isn't being closed as far as I'm aware - it just won't be under the Society's umbrella any more. I'm not sure how that transfer is going to work, though.

Thats good to hear......

Why does the Society always shoot itself in the foot? I'd have thought any discussion on Richard should be embraced and I can't see how it's old-fashioned; it's only another (and hopefully more serious) version of Facebook or Twitter.Like the rest of you I sincerely hope it does continue. Do you know when the changes are due? H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2017, 23:29 Subject: Re: Richard Society Forum
Thats good to hear......

If they delete this forum, just create another one with another title.
On Mar 8, 2017 10:13 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 
Why does the Society always shoot itself in the foot? I'd have thought any discussion on Richard should be embraced and I can't see how it's old-fashioned; it's only another (and hopefully more serious) version of Facebook or Twitter.Like the rest of you I sincerely hope it does continue. Do you know when the changes are due? H   From: "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2017, 23:29 Subject: Re: Richard Society Forum
 
Thats good to hear......

I hope I am wrong, but I get the impression that the Society doesn't really like us plebs saying too much in any location which may be seen as being the Society's official 'place'.The Society Facebook page, for example, has been quite heavily 'moderated' at times. And it isn't necessarily the anti-Richard brigade who get 'moderated'.As I say, my impression, may be completely wrong. Brian W.

To all:The committee has decided it does not fit in with other options available on the internet and probably would prefer to see it closed down.As the owner of this forum I am more than happy to keep it open for all those that wish to continue to use it. There are around 900 members, which indicates that the forum is flourishing.Regards,Neil

Hi, Neil 
I don't understand the committee's reasoning. After all, it costs the Society nothing. On the other hand, despite the name, it has never seemed to me to be closely connected to the Society, and one doesn't have to be a member of the Society to belong.


If they are determined to cut it loose, it seems to me that all you need is a bit of a name change. Maybe Richard III Forum, or something like that.


Pity to have any kerfuffle. 9


Johanne


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: neil.trump@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 8, 2017 2:18 PM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard Society Forum




To all:


The committee has decided it does not fit in with other options available on the internet and probably would prefer to see it closed down.


As the owner of this forum I am more than happy to keep it open for all those that wish to continue to use it. There are around 900 members, which indicates that the forum is flourishing.


Regards,


Neil

I would also like to say that I haven't had to intervene on any contentious emails and moderate people for stepping over the line for a long time.My policy is to be careful of those that wish to join by indiscrete methods and once a member has joined all emails are moderated until I see a pattern of what I call 'normality' and then they become unmoderated, it is a system that seems to work well and I hope everyone appreciates this approach.Regards,Neil

I am to understand that they are happy with the decision they have made and it seems to suit both sides.I hope it is OK for all forum members as wellRegards,Neil

I am so glad that you are willing to continue, Neil.The Society is quite wrong in saying it is under-used. I just read and learn rather than attempt to contribute.I daresay that the majority of the 900 are similar to myself.'Twitter'??? Good grief !Joan C.

Thanks Neil please keep us going. I have learnt so much on here. I have tried the Society's Facebook and I didn't like it much. Each to their own.

Yes please count me in Neil and a million thanks for your offer. However the Society does need to examine its strategy. Suppose it lost 900 subscriptions! HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, 6:34 pm, RONALD COOKSLEY greyfox.cooksley@... [] <> wrote:
I am so glad that you are willing to continue, Neil.The Society is quite wrong in saying it is under-used. I just read and learn rather than attempt to contribute.I daresay that the majority of the 900 are similar to myself.'Twitter'??? Good grief !Joan C.

I think Joan is correct. I really had forgotten that we are a Forum. For me this is all about great information, wonderful (and not so) books and movies, and
nice people.
Pamela



From: [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 12:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard Society Forum


I am so glad that you are willing to continue, Neil.
The Society is quite wrong in saying it is under-used. I just read and learn rather than attempt to contribute.
I daresay that the majority of the 900 are similar to myself.
'Twitter'??? Good grief !

Joan C.

An e-mail list I subscribed to for work reasons has decided to go
Facebook. Though I enjoy Facebook to keep up with family etc, I
find it very unhelpful for anything of lasting value, as I can
never locate that insightful comment a day after the discussion
started, or whatever.

Best wishes
Christine


On 08-Mar-17 18:38, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
 

Yes please count me in Neil and a million thanks for your
offer.  However the Society does need to examine its
strategy. Suppose it lost 900 subscriptions! H


Sent
from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, 6:34
pm, RONALD COOKSLEY greyfox.cooksley@...
[]
<> wrote:
 
I am so glad that you are willing to
continue, Neil.
The
Society is quite wrong in saying it is
under-used. I just read and learn rather
than attempt to contribute.
I
daresay that the majority of the 900 are
similar to myself.
'Twitter'???  
Good grief !

Joan
C.

Thank you Marie for your assurance that the forum will not be closed and also Neil for his willingness tocontinue! And all the others for expressing their opinions about the forum!Eva

Thank you Neil. I really enjoy the Forum and have learned so much and found lots of pieces of the great big jigsaw we are trying to complete and might never complete, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.Mary

Although I don't post much on this forum, I do read all the posts. I am pleased that it will continue, as it does provide a lot of information.

Thank you Neil for keeping the forum open. It is disappointing that the RIII Society is dissociating itself from it, as there is nothing old fashioned about in depth discussion of a topic with no trolling - something that Facebook and Twitter don't offer. I don't use Twitter (I suspect most Ricardians don't either) and while the FB page posts some interesting articles, there isn't much commentary on them. I hope the Society will reconsider its decision, especially since it doesn't cost them anything. If not, I suppose calling it the Richard III forum will do.Nico On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 7:15, "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <> wrote:
Although I don't post much on this forum, I do read all the posts. I am pleased that it will continue, as it does provide a lot of information.

Hopefully Marie you will still be taking part in discussions.Mary

Jan here.Like Pamela I don't post much but I look at the Forum most days. Neil, I'm grateful to you for keeping the Forum going & I hope to find stimulating ideas on it for a long time to come. The Forum keeps me interested!A big vote of thanks to all the regular posters too, & long may you last.Sent from my iPad On 9 Mar 2017, at 09:27, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you Neil for keeping the forum open. It is disappointing that the RIII Society is dissociating itself from it, as there is nothing old fashioned about in depth discussion of a topic with no trolling - something that Facebook and Twitter don't offer. I don't use Twitter (I suspect most Ricardians don't either) and while the FB page posts some interesting articles, there isn't much commentary on them. I hope the Society will reconsider its decision, especially since it doesn't cost them anything. If not, I suppose calling it the Richard III forum will do.Nico On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 7:15, "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <> wrote:
Although I don't post much on this forum, I do read all the posts. I am pleased that it will continue, as it does provide a lot of information.

I agree; I am not very active, but I appreciate the Forum and look forward to it continuing. I think it serves a valuable function, and frankly, no matter what they say, there is nothing else like it, that I am aware of. You cannot compare Facebook or other social networks, because while great for sharing pictures and information, they are not very good for conducting ongoing discussions.


That's my 2 farthings. =


Johanne


Johanne L. Tournier
Email  jltournier60@...


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10


From: Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 9, 2017 6:27 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Richard Society Forum



Jan here.
Like Pamela I don't post much but I look at the Forum most days. Neil, I'm grateful to you for keeping the Forum going & I hope to find stimulating ideas on it for a long time to come. The Forum keeps me interested!
A big vote of thanks to all the regular posters too, & long may you last.


Sent from my iPad


On 9 Mar 2017, at 09:27, Nicholas Brown nico11238@...<mailto:nico11238@...> [] <<mailto:>> wrote:


Thank you Neil for keeping the forum open. It is disappointing that the RIII Society is dissociating itself from it, as there is nothing old fashioned about in depth discussion of a topic with no trolling - something that Facebook and Twitter don't offer. I don't use Twitter (I suspect most Ricardians don't either) and while the FB page posts some interesting articles, there isn't much commentary on them. I hope the Society will reconsider its decision, especially since it doesn't cost them anything. If not, I suppose calling it the Richard III forum will do.



Nico



On Thursday, 9 March 2017, 7:15, "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@...<mailto:pamela.furmidge@...> []" <<mailto:>> wrote:



Although I don't post much on this forum, I do read all the posts. I am pleased that it will continue, as it does provide a lot of information.

Absolutely.I'm actually happy with this arrangement as it guarantees that the forum will remain independent and somewhere that anyone - member of the RIII Soc or not - can freely sound off ideas. I think maintaining Neil's light-touch moderating is ideal.

Neil,
I
also want to add my appreciation of your efforts and offer.
I
have found this forum to be very informative and extremely
interesting!
I
have no idea why the Society would wish to disassociate itself from it except to
wonder if the Society powers-that-be believe uninformed likes are of greater
value that the discussions held here?
Doug
Stamate
(Who
is trying to not be too cynical...)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

it's not really how it happened, and not the spirit in which the decision was made, but I can't really say more.

I guess whatever they are more than a little thin-skinned :) It is a shame though because they're hardly rolling in money and being part of the forum did encourage people to join. I just wanted to endorse your comment about Neil's moderation, rarely does one find such a light-handed and fair moderator.BTW very glad you're continuing!! H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Thursday, 9 March 2017, 16:41 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Richard Society Forum
it's not really how it happened, and not the spirit in which the decision was made, but I can't really say more.

Marie
wrote:
it's
not really how it happened, and not the spirit in which the decision was made,
but I can't really say more.
That's
very good to know and I apologize for allowing my cynicism to get the best of
me!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

The Administrator of the Forum is no longer a member of the Society and has ignored all attempts by the Executive Committee to contact him and discuss matters. As the Society no longer has any control over the Forum we had no choice but to withdraw Society support. We have no say over whether the Forum continues or not, but would like to make it clear that it can no longer purport to be the Forum of the Richard III Society. From 1st April this Forum will have no connection at all with the Richard III Society, or any of it's officers. A statement confirming the same will shortly appear on the Society website.On behalf of Sharon Lock, Communications Manager, Richard III Society.

To all:The society sent two emails to me while I was on holiday which were of a tone that was not what I would call professional and I chose to ignore them. What would have been a more constructive means of communication is a phone call to discuss the situation.I chose to pass on my membership when I stepped down from running the website for about 12 years and the agreement at that time was that the committee had no issue with me continuing to support the forum for the future, so it is interesting to suddenly see that they wanted to change things.I then received a letter in the post ( note not a phone call to discuss again) saying that the forum could continue but it would not be supported on the website, which suited me.Now if the committee would like me to join again I am happy to do this if it resolves this as an issue.Regards,NeilSent from my iPad On 11 Mar 2017, at 17:48, amandageary@... [] <> wrote:
The Administrator of the Forum is no longer a member of the Society and has ignored all attempts by the Executive Committee to contact him and discuss matters. As the Society no longer has any control over the Forum we had no choice but to withdraw Society support. We have no say over whether the Forum continues or not, but would like to make it clear that it can no longer purport to be the Forum of the Richard III Society. From 1st April this Forum will have no connection at all with the Richard III Society, or any of it's officers. A statement confirming the same will shortly appear on the Society website.On behalf of Sharon Lock, Communications Manager, Richard III Society.

To all, again:Further to my previous email, I would also like to bring to Amanda andSandra's notice, is that they are technically wrong in the Forum not havinga member of the Society as another moderator. When the forum was set up many years ago my co-founder was fellow EC memberWendy Moorhen, former Deputy Chairman, and who always championed the Forumon the EC whilst she was a Society officer. Wendy recognised the usefulnessof this chat room and despite my leaving the Society acted as a liaisonbetween the EC and myself. Although never active on the moderation of theForum as I was willing to undertake this role, Wendy still retains herstatus as co-founder and moderator. So with this further information I believe that in reality there shouldn'tbe any need to remove the link from the Society website as it does have a current member as a moderator.Regards,NeilSent from my iPad On 11 Mar 2017, at 17:48, amandageary@... [] <> wrote:
The Administrator of the Forum is no longer a member of the Society and has ignored all attempts by the Executive Committee to contact him and discuss matters. As the Society no longer has any control over the Forum we had no choice but to withdraw Society support. We have no say over whether the Forum continues or not, but would like to make it clear that it can no longer purport to be the Forum of the Richard III Society. From 1st April this Forum will have no connection at all with the Richard III Society, or any of it's officers. A statement confirming the same will shortly appear on the Society website.On behalf of Sharon Lock, Communications Manager, Richard III Society.

I must say Neil the tone of the message from the society on here makes you sound as if you have been uncooperative. This is obviously not the case. Casting that aside as the society seems to have made its mind up will we be able to still enjoy and use the forum with you as administrator/moderator etc., It,obviously will be harder for newcomers to locate if it no longer appearing on the society website which is a great shame. On the technical side how will be able to log on. There will be a new title presumably. Will we also be able to access all the old messages.Let's look at this as a new beginning and not an ending...Eileen

Neil I'm sure we will sort this out someway and I endorse Eileen's final sentence. I have to say the tone of the communication from the Soceity is not what one wants to receive on a Saturday evening; it sounds like they wanted to introduce censorship, not good they don't own Richard, no-one does.Please don't blame yourself. Let's just move on and as Eileen says, explore preserving the archive. HSent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, March 11, 2017, 8:06 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
I must say Neil the tone of the message from the society on here makes you sound as if you have been uncooperative. This is obviously not the case. Casting that aside as the society seems to have made its mind up will we be able to still enjoy and use the forum with you as administrator/moderator etc., It,obviously will be harder for newcomers to locate if it no longer appearing on the society website which is a great shame. On the technical side how will be able to log on. There will be a new title presumably. Will we also be able to access all the old messages.Let's look at this as a new beginning and not an ending...Eileen

Eileen,As mentioned in an earlier email, I have offered to join again if this helps to resolve the issue, but more importantly, Wendy is still a Society member as well as being a moderator, so currently we meet the criteria set by the committee and there isn't a real reason to remove the link.As a number of you have expressed, the forum has a place in Richard's discussion, as does Facebook and Twitter. Between the three of them they cover a good set of mediums to get people involved in discussion on whatever level suits each individual.The Society has my phone number and if Phil Stone would like to call me to discuss the issue I am happy to have a chat with him to bring this to a positive end.Regards,NeilSent from my iPad On 11 Mar 2017, at 20:06, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
I must say Neil the tone of the message from the society on here makes you sound as if you have been uncooperative. This is obviously not the case. Casting that aside as the society seems to have made its mind up will we be able to still enjoy and use the forum with you as administrator/moderator etc., It,obviously will be harder for newcomers to locate if it no longer appearing on the society website which is a great shame. On the technical side how will be able to log on. There will be a new title presumably. Will we also be able to access all the old messages.Let's look at this as a new beginning and not an ending...Eileen

May I add my two penn'orth, Neil? I may not post very often, nor do I still belong to the Society, but I always read what's going on on the Forum. You've been treated shabbily, and have my wholehearted support. Good luck, and just let us know what to do
to keep the Forum going in its new guise.
Sandra

I want to add, as a member of the Society for many years I think it is atrocious that Neil, who has been running this Forum for many years has been addressed as The Admininistor by two people, namely Sharon Lock and Amanda Gerry, representing the Society in their message on here withdrawing the Society's support, without the courtesy of using his name. It is unprofessional, offensive and totally unnecessary. And Sharon Lock if you think this is ok in your capacity as Communications manager - give me strength - then you need to consider getting some training, I want to know if Phil Stone thinks this is the right way to go about things. Personally, as you can probably tell, I think it's a deplorable - an absolute disgrace. I never thought my beloved Richard lll Society would behave in such a cavalier way. Shame on you,Eileen Bates

So my first impression after reading the note in the Bulletin about the Society's decision to withdraw their support for the forum was correct. I suspected troubles behind the scenes in the first place, as the given reasons sounded vague and unsatisfactory to me. As some of you already mentioned, twitter and Facebookcan never replace the forum. And as a member I find it sad that the Society does not see the necessity of giving their members an opppurtunity for more detailed and often scholary discussions. I think is detriment tothe Society's vocationnot to do so.That said, I hope the forum will live on and thrive in the future, even in "post social media days"!Eva

Please keep it going Neil. I have expressed my opinion privately via Facebook and a reply to the message on here from the Society again privately.
You have done a marvellous job here over the years and although I post very rarely I am on everyday reading the messages which is more than I do on Facebook & Twitter ( I am a member of both) as nothing much seems to happen on them.

Sent from my iPad

To all:Thank you for all your support. I am very flattered by the appreciation shown by various members for how I moderate this forum, although in reality I need to do very little these days. I check posts each day to see what is topical and ensure everything is running smoothly and keep the robotic applicants out so we don't get spurious junk/spam spoiling it for everyone.The truth Is that the success of the forum is down to you, the 900 members, who regularly engage in topical Ricardian related discussions and who are also willing to spend large amounts of time to help others with all those awkward and complex questions.I am hopeful that there will be a positive end to this situation and that we can continue for the foreseeable future.Regards,Neil Sent from my iPad On 12 Mar 2017, at 17:00, Carole Hughes caroleugis@... [] <> wrote:
Please keep it going Neil. I have expressed my opinion privately via Facebook and a reply to the message on here from the Society again privately.
You have done a marvellous job here over the years and although I post very rarely I am on everyday reading the messages which is more than I do on Facebook & Twitter ( I am a member of both) as nothing much seems to happen on them.

Sent from my iPad

No..Neil..Thank you!

A big yes to preserving the archive. I hope there will be some communication to members (like me) who do not visit every day, if a new method of logging on becomes necessary.A J

Thank you Neil for all your hard work over the years. Those of us have been members of the Forum for many years and indeed the Society, appreciate your moderation. I can remember the time when you had to intervene many times due to, for want of a better word, "trolls". You handled it superbly and made this Forum what it is today, a good place to discuss Richard III and his times and learn.Mary

I was sad to read in the bulletin of the strange decision to no longer support the forum, though I have not contributed for quite a while I read with interest the discussion and am in awe of the knowledge that is shown here and shared freely. I belong to the facebook and twitter feeds for the Society but they do not provide the level of discussion that is found on these threads. I am glad to read that Neil is willing to maintain it, and I too thank him for all the years that he has given to providing this forum.

Eva wrote:"I have read in the "Bulletin" that the Society is no longer interested in this Forum. Appearantly it is too oldfashioned in the Society's opinion and "there also was a distinct decline in the use of the Forum".I for my part would miss the interesting and often comprehensive discussions here should the forum be closed.Does anyone know what will happen to this forum in the future? What do you all think about this announcement?"Carol responds:Forgive me for responding before reading the Bulletin announcement (or any responses to this post, but I want to respond immediately. I for one like the "old-fashioned" format (I detest Facebook and have never used Twitter or any "modern" format [designed as I understand for quick responses, not long posts]). I sincerely hope that this forum remains in use--as is. An earlier attempt to modernize it failed drastically and it was reconstituted in this form. Please don't "fix" it or replace it or disband it! Leave it as it is.Carol

Brian wrote:"I hope I am wrong, but I get the impression that the Society doesn't really like us plebs saying too much in any location which may be seen as being the Society's official 'place'. The Society Facebook page, for example, has been quite heavily 'moderated' at times. And it isn't necessarily the anti-Richard brigade who get 'moderated'."Carol responds:All the more reason to keep this forum, even if we have to change its name. Moderator, please chime in!Carol

Neil wrote:"The committee has decided it does not fit in with other options available on the internet and probably would prefer to see it closed down. As the owner of this forum I am more than happy to keep it open for all those that wish to continue to use it. There are around 900 members, which indicates that the forum is flourishing."Carol responds:Thank you, Neil!