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

[Mark Davies]

RAS writes,

> I don't like this definition of a lead.
> Consider the method &34-34.1-2-1.34-34.1,1

Yes, it looks like a two-lead twin-hunt TD method doesn't it, even though
the basic unit is actually a principle with lead head 652341.

Trouble is, if you let someone ring and name it as a TD method, what happens
when someone else comes along and wants to ring it as a principle? I'd guess
you'd let them do that, but then you've got basically the same method given
two names and two totally different classifications.

One of the tenets of Norwich was to be able to uniquely classify methods. I
said, anything goes for compositions, it is up to the composer to describe,
but for methods, there should only be one way to describe a given block of
place notation which is under classification as a method.

If you don't have this, and you allow the same block of place notation to be
classifed as different methods, well then I think you're in trouble. How do
you maintain the method libraries? How do you decide what a method is?

Given a method with place notation A, if AA is completely different method
in the method libraries, why shouldn't rotations of A also be different?
That would seem a logical conclusion to me. But then we have the crazy
situation that Eddie's "New Grandsire" would indeed be a different method
from Grandsire, but funny starts for Stedman would no longer be Stedman.
Down this path lies madness!

> This means that, for example, it can't be included in a peal of spliced 
> treble dodging minor.

I don't see that as a problem really. It would seem perfectly reasonable to 
me to be able to ring this kind of principle in a peal of spliced TD Minor. 
Technically the method is a principle, in practice you can ring it as a TD 
method and describe the peal as a whole as such, but with the individual 
method named as a principle. What's not to like about that??

MBD