[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Thu Aug 7 13:18:58 UTC 2008

Matthew Frye wrote:

> Not entirely consistent there, saying that they are peals, 
> just not recognised ones sound very much like a wooly term 
> to me.

An important distiction is that they are no longer "not 
recognised" but rather "not recognised by the Central 

> However you put it, i very much doubt that this system 
> would have any different effect than the current one, 
> things that were on the banned list (which is what it is 
> in all but name) just wouldn't be rung.

I appreciate that, and I don't particularly like it either; 
however it's an attempt at finding a pragmatic solution 
recognising that a set of decisions that allow absolutely 
anything as a peal will not gain sufficient support to be 
adopted.  We've already seen GACJ, MBD and MJC objecting to 
certain things that Don's definitions allow.  If, even 
amongst the pretty progressive bunch of people on this list, 
we still want to introduce restrictions, what hope is there 
amongst the forces of conservatism on the Central Council?

Personally, I would prefer the decisions to label a 5040 
minimus with 12 covers as an unrecognised peal, rather than 
asserting that it is simply not a peal at all.  Yes, I would 
prefer it to be simply labelled a peal, but I'm assuming 
that that is unlikely to be generally acceptable.

One problem with the existing decisions is that it simply 
isn't possible for the majority of people to change them 
because there is no clear separation between the basic 
definitions and the restrictions placed on them.  While I 
would like the 'Recognition' section to be completely empty 
-- i.e. that there are no proscriptions peals beyond the 
basic definition of a peal -- I don't think that's 
realistic.  But by placing the proscriptions in a separate 
section, it makes it much easier for these to be safely 
ammended without fear of introducing unwanted consequences. 
And that means that a proposals from the floor to change the 
decisions are much more feasible.

If we can't immediately remove all the restrictions that we 
would like to remove, we can at least make it easy for 
someone to do so in the future.  And if in doing so, we make 
strip the decisions of some of their mystery and allow mere 
mortals to interpret them without relying on the high priest 
of the Methods Committee and his anointed acolytes, that's a 
good thing too.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list