[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal
richard at ex-parrot.com
Thu Aug 7 12:28:29 UTC 2008
Matthew Frye wrote:
> The solution (a solution) to this is to basically
> remove artificial limits and let people ring what they
> want, and leave it up to them to decide what they believe
> is worth ringing and what isn't, if they believe that what
> they are ringing is worthwhile, then i can see no reason
> why anyone else should be able to put limits on it, and if
> they want to ring something they view as not worthwhile
> then that's their time to waste.
I'm agree with Matthew, Don and Peter on this. Personally,
I have no problem with someone ringing minimus with 12
covers, though I wouldn't agree to participate.
I think the way forward is to make the basic definitions as
liberal as possible: allow (and define) jump changes; allow
multiple covers and other sorts of non-changing bells; allow
5016s of minor or 5039s of triples. I'd even say allow
cylindrical if I thought we could write consistent
definitions that dealt with the interactions between
cylindrical and jump changes.
However, the basic definitions aren't everything, and
there's still space to layer a some value judgements on top
of them if they are desired. We then introduce a section
called 'Recognition' or something. (And I don't feel that
we should beat around the bush with a wooly term like
'unanalysable' or 'unclassifiable' or anything. If we want
to retain any sort of value judgement, let's be open about
The 'Recognition' section, would then a list of
proscriptions. For example,
The Central Council does not recognise peals which
a) jump changes;
b) more than multiple non-changing bells; or
c) more than 42 consecutive blows in one place.
or whatever is desired. Note the language: the decisions do
not say that they are not peals -- I don't believe the CC
should have the authority to make such a pronouncement --
merely that they are not recognised. We can still require
the PAC (or whoever that is these days) to analyse and
record unrecognised peals.
This is probably also the place to note that peals must be
rung on bells (if that's desired), that bells must be rung
by the same ringer throughout (again, if desired), and so
This has several advantages. As and when the decisions are
liberalised/tightened, all that is required is to
remove/add proscriptions from/to the list. The basic
definitions will not need modification.
It is also (to my mind) a much cleaner approach: we start
with a very broad set of definitions that allow (almost)
anything, and we then explicitly disallow things which are
specifically felt to be of less merit. This is in contrast
to the existing decisions that start from the premise that
nothing is legal and then list things that you can do in a
More importantly, this also means that it is possible to
present a menu of possible proscriptions to the Central
Council. Potentially, you could produce a long list of
proscriptions that reproduce the effect of the current
decisions, and allow the meeting (not a Committee) to select
which it wants to see ratified.
That way, if the result is that jump changes are not
recognised, it is because the Council have explicitly,
unamiguously, knowingly voted not to accept them, rather
than because they have been presented with a convoluted
definition set of definitions which together outlaw them.
I think people would be more inclined to accept the
Council's view on what should be recognised if they felt
that Council members actually understood the implications of
what they vote to accept / not accept.
Finally, presenting a list of choices to the CC involves
them in the process, which I suspect is more likely to make
them accept a major rewrite to the decisions.
More information about the ringing-theory