Ringing Forums

realistic numbers would be a good thing surely, because an affiliation fee set to provide the required income would be more secure if the rate was based on real numbers rather than fictitious numbers that might evaporate.

a survey we did in 2017 came up with 30% of members who never or rarely ring, see: http://www.odg.org.uk/sdb/documents/minutes_reports/Results6.pdf
In most cases I don't think it was people having their subs paid, after all £8 per year is small change for most people who like to think they still belong.

I don't want to behave like I did 50 years ago, that was during the period when I hardly ever rang and life was full of other things.

I just discovered that the both the forums and conversations are paginated, which I hadn't realised, and which doesn't seem to be ideally implemented.
First, I saw a reply and tried to scroll up to see what it was responding to. It wasn't the comment above, and there were no others shown. After several attempts to scroll failed to work I spotted the tiny 1 and 2 at the bottom and realised the were pages and got to the earlier page.
I can see the benefit of hiding older comments from initial display but it would be more helpful to show the last 10 (or 20 or whatever the limit is) rather than cutting off at a fixed point.
Then I discovered 5 similar tabs at the bottom of the list of conversations. I assumed that like the lower ones listed on the first 'page' they would have no 'new' comments, but out of curiousity I had a look anyway and discovered a handful that did have 'new' comments.
I realise that 'new' means 'I have not read them'. The system obviously keeps track of that and uses that information to open each conversation at the first comment I haven't seen.
So why can't the same logic ensure that the list of conversations I am shown includes any with comments that I haven't seen?

the increased need for food banks may be a sad commentary on current political and social values the idea that povert is the main, or even a, constraint on recruiting ringers is laughable. The hang up about paying for things in ringing is something generated within the ringing community, which those outside find hard to understand.

This topic comes up most years. Rinbers who don't ring in Holy Wek seem to assume it's universal when it isn't. For example BellBoard in 2019 has around 100 performances on Maundy Thursday and around 30 on Good Friday.
It would be interesting to know the origin of the idea of not ringing. Maybe the historians can help, a

clarity isn't the problem. It obviously represents the OP. The problem is having something visually prominent at the start of the entry that goes somewhere else. But if it's Hobson's choice ...

I know what the problem is. The CC website, used to work OK on my iPad but then it was changed so that some content is inaccessible without a 'recent' browser. I use the latest version that will run on my iPad, and I'm not going to throw away a perfectly working device to suit the whims of a picky website.
When I reported the problem I had no reply so I assume it's not considered important.

unfortunately that is one of the pages that don't show any content when viewed from my iPad.

agree about a good seal. When we installed ours in 1982 I added strips of draft excluder foam, and as I closed the last one I had put the strips on we noticed the slight sound of traffic had disappeared. I still do that as a party trick when showing visitors round.

no chance of disturbing the neighbours is more complex than the sound level of the bells. Among other things it depends on the background sound level. As an example our shutters reduce the sound level by approx 20 dB when closed. You probably wouldn't notice the ringing from when there is lots of traffic but with no traffic they are audible for several hundred metres with direct line of site.
Is the sound of quiet bells disturbing? It's a bit like a ticking clock - one person forgets its there but another finds it really distracting.
I could dig out the measurements we made if they are any use.

One thing I find irritating is the icon shown with each discussion entry. It doesn't represent the topic (so no useful value) but the first poster. I keep hitting it by accident when trying to open the conversation, and then have to backtrack. Why not remove it?

or at least stop it rising?

I'm not convinced that charging would adversely affect recruitment. Do a thought experiment with a comparable skilled activity such as various sports, musical instruments or driving, where payment for tuition is the norm. Now suppose the charging was outlawed and all tuition had to be free. Would more adults and children come forward to learn? Would the same number of tutors be available? Would the quality of tuition be the same? I suspect not. Why should ringing be different?

iwould charging really be a barrier to entry? Outside of ringing people don't expect everything to be free and expect to pay for tuition. It seems to be longer established ringers who have strong feelings about it.
And my reaction to fun is like AJB's. Ringers certainly need to get satisfaction out of ringing to keep them hooked, but if all they get is fun I doubt it would last when something else more amusing comes along.

I think 'the future of' is an under defined concept. The context implies achieving some 'good' or at least acceptable long term outcome, what you define as 'good' affects not only the two answers but also yhe relationship between them.
In simple terms for change ringing to continue sustainably then ringing must also. That's true even if the outcome is (say) 10,000 ringers, all of whom changes in (say) 1000 towers. But that might not be considered a 'good' outcome for 'ringing', certainly not by those who see change ringing as an inevitably niche activity, and advocate a future largely built on call changes.

let's not go down that route. The forums should be for discussion and information exchange, not attention seeking. If a contribution is particularly valuable there are words in the English language to say so.

I would say ratification was by default. In practice there would need to be an extreme problem for a willing volunteer leader with the confidence of the band not yo be accepted.
I'm not sure appointment is necessarily recent either. I think there always were places where the TC wasn't elected but offered the job by either PCC or the incumbent. I don't have data to prove that, it's just a hunch about 'the bad old days'.

it's Horne not Thorne, which might be why your search went awry. Alison asked the Historians and CJP responded but I don't remember all the detail. Searching for the right name should help though.

that may be the legal position, but the custom of the ringers electing their leader (subject to the approval of the PCC) seems likely to produce more effective results.