[r-t] Philip's new Decisions, including Wiki page

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 3 13:01:14 UTC 2008

Hi Philip,

I like your new Decisions - excellent stuff.

A few questions and suggestions:

1. E(B) uses the term "lead", but doesn't define it. I think you need a 
Norwich-like definition, something like "A lead is the shortest section of 
the plain course which, when repeated, generates the plain course".

2. What do you do about bells that don't move in the lead? Do you really 
want someone to be able to name the method &567890ET.14567890ET,+12567890ET 
"Scooby-Doo Maximus"? Doesn't seem to fit in with what our conceptions about 
ringing methods on different stages are.

3. E(C) - the term "well-formed" seems to imply a value judgement! How about 
"symmetric" or "self-reflective"? Also do you need to say "symmetrical about 
two places made half a lead apart", isn't that implied by "same path if rung 
backwards"? Well I guess it's not quite - but accepting Good and Evil as 
Alliance methods instead of Hybrid would be a sensible thing to allow.

4. I quite like the historical conventions: Alliance, Treble Place and so on 
are all useful. You refer to them in the second C section (now D, changed 
it, hope you don't mind) anyway. I think you should include the main 
classifications Plain, Treble Dodging, Treble Place, Alliance and Hybrid in 
one section, and the secondary classifications Place/Bob and 
TB/Delight/Surprise in another.

5. I think "Little" is also useful, and you should describe this as an extra 
type of classification. The words "in each position of the path" which 
you've used for all classes I think are lifted from the original Decisions 
and are what allow a Plain method to be a Little method without having to be 
classified as Alliance. Also what about allowing the tag "Differential" to 
be added to methods with length of plain course not equal number of working 

6. In the new section D, doesn't the "Littleness" of a hunt bell count? If 
we're considering a Maximus method with an Alliance-path treble, path say 
123434565678789090ETET, but the 2nd hunts in 1-2 for the entire lead, do we 
really want to describe that as a Plain method? I'm not sure, but I'd be 
tempted to go for the "biggest" hunt first, and use the class hierarchy to 
pick the hunt where multiple hunts are of the same size.

7. E(E) - not allowing peals of Singles?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list