[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Aug 7 21:41:47 UTC 2008

JEC writes in reply to me,

>> We need a vote thingy - anyone got one handy?
> Not a very representative group, though.

It's all we've got... ;-O

>> There's a good chance, in the long run, of getting the ringing
>> community to accept completely liberalised method classification.
> I doubt it.

One day Tony and his Cronies won't be in charge. I suppose by then the rest
of us might be old and withered and stuck in our ways and wanting to make
the method rules more complex and more prescriptive rather than less. Ah
well, we'll see eh. No harm in trying though.

> People want some sort of rules.  (Why 5000 changes, anyway?)  Does anyone
> think that 20 20 cricket is cricket?  Possibly.  It has some rules which
> resemble those of proper cricket.  But why have wickets? What if the pitch
> is 30 yards long?  Or 10?  And what about a double-sized ball?

Exactly. I think you've hit the nail on the head here JEC. Innovation
thrives in a framework of rules. But they need to be good rules: clear,
sensible, not too limiting, and popular with the public.

My solution for happy ringing families is to keep peal rules strong, and 
liberalise methods.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list