[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Sun Aug 10 12:07:53 UTC 2008

Chris Adams writes,

> It seems to me that this discussion is going nowhere and will probably
> just peter out never having come to any kind of consensus or conclusion.
> Perhaps we need to accept that the current decisions are a reasonable
> attempt to codify things.

Very defeatist! We are actually making good progress I think. Certainly any
variation of what we're talking about now would be a million miles better
than the current CC/MC rules - I suspect we're all agreed on that.

> The Birmingham example that Don quoted was an interesting case. The band
> knew the peal would not conform, but took the time and trouble to explain
> the innovation. The result was a change to the decisions.

Yes, but a completely rubbish change! By consigning Differentials into a
separate category of their own, the MC has made a mess of the classification
and extension rules. For instance, there are several Surprise methods the
Birmingham band has wanted to extend to 14 - they do extend but turn into
short-course methods - hence treated as Differentials by the MC not
Surprise. Absolute crap!

This is one of the reasons why we should put a better framework in place.
Incremental changes to rules can only go so far - eventually they turn into
a tangled mess which needs a good clear out. That time is now.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list