[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Mark Davies]

RAS writes:

> I fundamentally don't see how you can produce a rule that allows 'nicely'
> fragmented extents of minor interspersed through a 3600 of triples, while
> disallowing an 'obviously' false 5040 of triples that happen to be
> describable as a 3600 of triples with two 'unnaturally' fragmented extents
> of minor interspersed through out it.

Indeed, but I'm saying the two guidelines:

1. Only twin-stage peals, A and B with |A-B|=1; and
2. stage determined at the level of the lead.

Are enough to give us a good middle ground on these value judgements. They
disallow most things that are blatantly false, and allow most things that
are not. Where special cases lie outside, they are few, and lie on both
sides, and are quickly flagged up by the two rules; community consensus can
then decide.

 I.e. I think this is the best we can do, without giving up altogether and
saying "set your own standards of truth" - which is no good to me as a
pealsec of a CC-affiliated association.

MBD