[r-t] Restriction #4
tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 12:13:06 UTC 2014
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:
> Do you really want to be adding new restrictions that aren't there
I'd be interested to hear what arguments there might be in favor of #7, and
whether this restriction has supporters.
But overall the situation of Grandsire Doubles rung with Bob Minor also
being able to be described as a Cinques method seems to be an unavoidable
overlap that we'd need to live with. It doesn't seem dissimilar to when we
accepted that Magenta Little Place and its differential equivalent could
both be named as methods, even though they produce the same plain course.
I don't think the current rules would allow you to ring two methods side by
side and describe it that way - you'd be required to name it as a single
method. In a revised set of rules, I think it would make sense to allow
side by side ringing, with or without internal cover bells, so as not to be
required to name a new method.
Let's vote on #4: The voting choices seem to be:
(a) The status quo, which is a 4-blow limit for all stages except Minimus
(Decision (E) A 6)
(b) No bell can make the same place consecutively for all of a method's
(c) No restriction at all on consecutive places (recognizing that if we
vote for this option, we'd need to revisit what it means when we get on to
discussing cover bells).
Are there any other voting choices?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ringing-theory