[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal
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