Ringing Forums

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. --- John Harrison ---That's not the case, — John de Overa

Your subsequent comments make it clear that it is.

I'm sure it's academic in your case because of your skill level, but for my level it certainly isn't. — John de Overa

I wasn't talking about my personal use, I was talking about ab initio teaching. As I said, I introduce new ringers to the process of ringing to fit in with an external rhythm as soon as they can handle a bell reliably, and before I inflict other ringers on them. One step at a time rather than throw them in at the deep end. By the time they do face lots of variability and visual input they know they can ring steadily and they know they can hear what they are doing. In the traditional approach those core skills don't get much of a look in while trying to stay afloat visually.

One very under-used resource is the simulator
— John Harrison ---- There you are preaching to the choir[/quote]

Your comments suggest a lot less agreement than the headline comment. The core skills of a ringer are to be able to ring with a reliable rhythm, to vary the rhythm easily and accurately (both to keep in place and to make manouevres - dodges, hunting, places,..) and to hear well enough to correct small errors before they become big errors. Without that underpinning they can't develop confidence in what they are doing, and can't make use of additional information about methods (learnt) or what's happening round them (ropesight).
Ringers taught the traditional way - lots of solo ringing with no external rhythm followed by trying to ring rounds with other ringers - only develop those skills by accident, and many of them never do. Proper use of a simulator (without visuals) starting as soon as handling is reasonably stable and continued alongside later progression to group ringing enables them to develop more solid core skills needed to ring the next blow confidently, even if you can't see a 'bell to follow'.
The weaker a band is, in terms of numbers and skills, the less able it is to provide hours and hours ov rock steady ringing around the learner, and hence the greater valuje of using simulators (at least as many simulators as the number of ringers you expect to be teaching / developing at the same time).

You can't learn ropesight on a simulator — John de Overa

I suspect you can, but I have never used visuals with a simulator so it's academic. People need to be taught how to acquire ropesight, the most important of which is not to focus on following individual bells, something that traditional teaching does thus delaying the acquisition of ropesight.
But to my original point, siumulators are a grossly under-used resource - in terms of both saving manpower and enhancing quality. Why are they not used? I suspect the two classic ringing reasons: that ringers (in general) like to do things the way they always have and don't like to spend money. .

Ringing needs a lot of investment for sure but the biggest need is people's time, not money. — John de Overa

So how do we set about getting more people's time?

Getting someone ringing properly takes a large amount of time for the tutors, the pupils and those around them providing support and a solid band. — John de Overa

Yes, that's the traditional way, but since the resource is in short supply how can we achieve more with less?
One very under-used resource is the simulator, which for a lot of basic skill development can:
- Replace the need for helpers to ring around the novice
- Provide a much more stable surround then many human helpers
- Remove a lot of the psychological pressure
- Provide far more rope time per novice hour than a conventional practice
- Can give objective feedback on performance
Simulators can be bought (with money) but are cheap compared with bells.
They are by no means the whole solution, but they can have a big effect on the result per person-hour invested in the overall process.

The final issue is the need for the CC to reorganise, given all the talk this has never happened — Robert Brown

That's an interesting comment, givenm the fact that it did undergo significant change a few years ago. I assume you do not feel the changes were enough, or in the right direction. You mention the question of Direct Membership, but what are the other reforms you feel are needed?

the cost of validating the process (was the naming-Performance true?), adding methods to the database, and (future generations) wondering "why?" - all adds to a non-zero cost in time and effort — PeterScott

Yes, it adds, but it adds an amount so tiny it is insignificant. Far more effort could be expended arguing about whether or not to allow marginal cases.

And asking for £10 would add a massive admin overheaed, not to mention heat. Just look at the argumanes going on over a suggested extra 20p per year.

you are right it needs careful attention. People bandy the term insurance around without thinking what it covers.

I hadn't heard of the "Network for Ringing Training" before, — John de Overa

How quickly things fade into history!
When I became chairman of the CC Education Committee in 2000 I inherited the plan to insitute an 'Instructors Guild', which had quite a bit of support but a lot of vehement opposition. Aftyer a while I concluded that we couldn't make it fly but was determined to replace it with something to be launcehd at Ringing RoadShow. NRT was very successful, exchanging ideas and holding conferences. It ran for eight yhears but the support infrastructure was on a shoestring and by the time I had got that sorted out it had lost momentum, I was no longer chairman and my successor never got it going again.
At the time we set it up I predicted that whereas we had failed to create the Instructors Guild top-down if we could sustain the interest with NRT then an instructors Guild would emerge bottom-up. ITTS (which preceded ART) appeared ten years after that prediction.
Sometime I should find the time to write it up.

what’s in it for “Brian from Bodmin”. — Andrew G Smith

Good question (and a nice change from the man on the Clapham omnibus). He might not care many ringers there are in 20 years time (he'll be dead by then) or about bells going out of use (if they do he'll stop ringing). And he might not care about ringers having the opportunity to reach their potential (he never felt the need to).
Sorry to be cynical but I fear there might be quite a lot of BfBs around.

I still find it hard to decide whether money is what is needed as actually so much of what we do relies on people choosing to invest their time and money can’t always change this. — Lucy Chandhial

Money alone certainly can't solve all the problems but it can enable more things to be done better and faster. Without money nothing gets done unless someone can be persuaded to give up the time to do it, with no control over when that is, how long it takes or how well it is done.
Obviously some things like teaching require expertise, which is in limited supply. But people with that expertise have to earn a living. If payment is available it can compete for earning time. With no payment it has to come out of leisure time.

Has any consideration been given to what a direct membership "package" would look like? — John de Overa

Not sure what's been done recently but this was my initial attempt when it came up ten years ago. https://jaharrison.me.uk/New/Articles/MemberOrgn.pdf

Some things do seem a bit silly, but different people have different silliness thresholds, so as soon as you build in a fixed threshold either you exclude things which can be seen as OK or you include things that can be seen as not OK. The simplest solution is not to build in thresholds unless you have to and to trust (most) people to be sensible.
If you think something is worthwhile take not. If you think it is silly ignore it. The proportion of such cases is so tiny it has no material effect on the cost of supporting them.

Taking subs to £1 a member could be paid for just by managing to centralise insurance, given how much collectively associations spend on insurance at the moment — Simon Linford

That surprises me. I would expect the cost of insurance to be per ringer,no doubt with some reduction for quantity, but last time the subject came up the figures the CC were talking about were slightly higher than ODG was paying at the time.
I don't disagree with looking at it - a national scheme has a lot of attractions, including saving duplicated admin - but I would be surprised if it saved loads of money.

Does this mark the end of direct membership being seen as the way of increasing the funding of ringing — Simon Linford

II never saw direct membership as a means to increase funding. It has its one merits. However if/when we move to direct membership that will have to be factored into any discussion of finding, notably the balance between corporate funding (from societies) and individual funding.

I wonder how someone who is 'individualistic and competitive' would react to being asked about it. People do not fit into neat stereotypes anyway so it might be better to try to find out what individuals feel they need and try to highlight aspects of ringing that match. That might go beyond personality types into other things. For example someone with a mathematical bent might find theoretical aspects such as composition, port or extension intersting and stimulating.

You can tell them that even Knuth references change ringing :lol: — John de Overa

And that a bellringing program was run on the Manchester Mk1 computer some time in the early 1950s. You can find the story online. Search for terms like 'shaggy dog story' 'Brian Price'. I might even have mentioned it when I wrote up Brian's life. If I did you can find it on: https://history.cccbr.org.uk

Just spotted a typo - missing word. In case it wasn't obvious I meant making a donation to the fund.

As a matter of interest, at last weeks AGM of ODG, when donations were being voted on, the Bell Fund trustees spoke against making a to the fund because it was not needed. By way of background I should say that no money that goes into the ODBF is ever spent because it is a capital fund, and only earnings generated by the capital go into the grant fund, which can be spent, but which currently has more than the foreseeable needs.

I'm sure there are many clubs who pay for some things and rely on volunteers for others, but that wasn't my point. I was questioning the suggestion that paying people to do things stopped an organisation fromm being 'bottom up', and I can't see why it should. The same people are making the decisions whether they are telling the contractor how often to cut the grass or twisting arms to find volunteers to do it more often.

I don't think a village cricket team would become less grass roots because it paid someone to cut the grass, or paint the pavilion.

Breaking those barriers down so the CCCBR is seen more as a "provider of useful stuff" by rank and file ringers rather than "something only our reps care about" seems like a good approach to me. — John de Overa

Agreed