[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something

[Richard Smith]

Mark Davies wrote:

>> And then you can look at the band, the composer, and any further details
>> given, before forming an opinion. If it says "comp. DJP, cond. DCB" you
>> probably know it's worth devoting some time to understanding it.
>
> Hmm. So if I have no idea who DJP and DCB are? I'm expected to be one of the
> in-crowd before understanding whether a peal is true or not?
>
> A concrete example. I'm the peal secretary of the G&B. I'm expected to prove
> peals and to tell conductors if they have rung something false, and not
> record it in our peal database. What am I to do, in the absence of proper
> guidelines to work against? Accept peals from my mates as true, and reject
> as false those rung by people I don't know?

And how often are you sent a list of 5000+ rows with no 
description of what was rung?  Has it ever happened?  I'm 
guessing not.  But anyway, the definition I'm championing 
allows you to evaluate falsness without understanding 
anything about how it is defined:  that's what IJA's 
algorithm (or a variant thereof) is for.

I accept that the silly triples and singles example is true 
as a peal of triples and singles, even though that is not 
desireable.  Type the figures for that (even if expressed as 
a peal of Stedman Triples) into a decent proving program and 
it should say: this is false as a peal of triples, but can 
be legally defined as a peal of triples and singles.  You 
then look at the title.  If it says triples and singles, you 
let it through.  If it just says triples, you reply, no, 
sorry, it's not a true peal of triples.

And depending on the composer / conductor / band, you either 
put it in your mental bucket of 'probaby shit compositions 
to be avoided' or 'compositions worthy of further 
investigation'.  I'm certainly not suggesting the composer / 
conductor should affect the falseness of the peal.

RAS