[r-t] nths place

Robin Woolley robin at robinw.org.uk
Thu Jul 17 04:22:05 UTC 2014

Hi All,

Don said "Which, I think, leads to the question: when folks make rules, 
are they doing it so that the record keepers can serve the ringers, or 
so the ringers can serve the record keepers? "

I think the first is the correct answer - although when record-keepers 
jobs' (i.e., money!!!!) depend on it, the second becomes more true.

Let us be clear on this, since 2002, the CC does not recognise peals. 
Those which do not comply with the decisions are still analysed, but in 
a slightly different way. I think that the reason for record keeping 
along with the Decisions are two fold:

i) So ringers in 100 years time will know what has been rung, and the 
name should give an idea of what sort of method(s) was/were rung,

ii) To eliminate the possibility of double naming.

Here is an example of (ii). Suppose I ring an extent of Plain Bob Minor. 
I rename every plain lead as a bob lead, and every bob lead as a plain 
lead and call it Single St. Hilda's Bob. (This nominally is a triple 
hunt method). How does this differ to those listening outside? More 
pertinently, how was it rung? I suspect it was just rung as Plain Bob 
and 'fixed' afterwards by re-labelling - rather like ringing 40-50 
Doubles m/v in a quarter and then worrying later about what they are named.

In a word, these methods, Plain & S. St. Hilda's, are isomorphic and to 
borrow an American expression, if it looks like a giraffe, moves like a 
giraffe, then it probably is a giraffe.

This, b.t.w., is not a criticism of the band which did it - they are 
just exploiting the loopholes which the Particles peal allowed. As a 
branch of Group Theory, the rules of change ringing are the same for all 
numbers, after all.

We used 2nds and nths place methods to kick off this discussion. Which 
of you would quite happily ring a 720 of Cambridge and call it Ebor? 
What did the good burghers of Winthorpe think we were ringing the other 
day? If I did use the Ebor name, we could all claim a first in the 
method. Or, an extent could be labelled 3-spliced - throw in Primrose 
for some of the bobbed leads.

What these Decisions have allowed to happen is the sort of thing which 
used to happen in real life. Something like "parking this side of the 
road on even dates only".

Someone, I think it was Robert Bennett, said that it might be a good 
idea to re-write the decisions according to the date of the change. Type 
II - dating from c1985 (uncovered triples); Type III, 1997 (variable 
cover), etc. There is something in this.

Best wishes

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list