[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Fri Aug 8 12:49:37 UTC 2008

Mark Davies wrote:

> I think it would be a cold day in hell before most peal 
> ringers would accept "anything as long as it's 5000 
> changes".

Yes, I appreciate that.  And that was the purpose of the 
email I sent yesterday in which I proposed a list of 
additional requirements (the 'Recognition' section) that a 
peal must satisfy in order to be recognised.

One of the fundamental problems with the existing decisions 
is that many of the things that are excluded are not 
immediately obviously excluded.  It would be easy to read 
the decisions and not appreciate the problem with 1T bobs in 
Cambridge Max unless you were specifically thinking about 
that.  This is because the definitions have been worded to 
reflect precisely what the MC wanted included at the time. 
It therefore means that most people who read the decisions 
have no idea what they exclude, and also makes changing the 
decisions a much harder exercise.

I want the decisions to start with the broadest set of 
definitions we can produce, and then explicitly rule out 
things.  That makes it easy to remove (or introduce) 
restrictions, thus paving the way for further liberalisation 
in the future.  And it makes it very clear what is being 

Furthermore, as I said in the other email, it gives the 
opportunity to engaged the CC in choosing what is and what 
isn't permitted by selecting the proscriptions to be 
included.  And by doing so, I think we significantly raise 
the chances of a proposal being adopted.  (Though, like JEC, 
I'm not particularly hopeful of any of it being adopted.)


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list