[r-t] Lead head codes

[Pip Dillistone]

> On 14 Apr 2017, at 21:52, pje24 at cantab.net wrote:
> 
> An isolated "e" tells you nothing, and looking up "e" tells you merely what the first leadhead is. 
> 
> It's a bit of a stretch to claim labelling something as "e" instead of "4" or "4,12" is a more intuitive and meaningful system.  And with the present system it completely makes makes a balls up of eg bob triples as Don points out.

A system that one is accustomed to will always appear to be more intuitive than one which is unfamiliar – in the case of change ringing, this has led to a large number of traditions which not only make no sense, but actively work to obscure useful information. I would argue that this is the reason that the Decisions are such a mess in the first place.

My ‘solution' was not intended as a best fix, but to demonstrate that if we wanted, we could use lead head codes in a way that would give more useful information immediately, without needing a reference table. It had been bothering me that the current system was clearly not designed for higher bell ringing at all (as PJE mentions), and I wondered if there was a way to combine the solutions to both problems in a single stroke.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170414/d1d9fb77/attachment.html>