[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results
tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 19 00:12:50 UTC 2014
So as there wasn't a clear-cut result from the non-divisible lead poll, I'm
wondering what rules relating to divisibility people would like to see (if
any at all). I've therefore re-worked the poll into the following four
rule options to see if any produces a consensus. For each option, I've
given an example using the methods we've been talking about recently (in
case this helps clarify anything for anyone). The various handlings of
divisible leads are all suggestions that have been made on this list over
the past few weeks:
*Option A*: Methods with place notations that are multiples or fractions of
other methods can each be separately named.
Example: The method with place notation 56.1T.56.1T.56.1T.56.1T.56.1T has
already been named as Magenta Little Place Maximus. It's a little plain
hunter with 5 hunt bells, a 10-row lead and a 7-lead course.
A band now rings and wants to name the method with place notation 56.1T.
This is a differential principle with a 2-row lead, a 5 / 7 structure, and
so a 35-lead course. It has the same plain course as Magenta. The band
wants to name this Cyan Differential Maximus, and it is permitted to do so
under Option A. I also believe this could be done today under the current
*Option B*: A method can't be named as a new method if its place notation
is a multiple or a fraction of a previously named method.
Example: Assume methods with one-lead courses are now allowed (a subject
for a future vote - I'm ignoring that they can now be rung as blocks).
Someone wants to name the method with place notation -16-16-16-16-16-16, a
method with a one-lead course, and he/she wants to name it Plain Hunt
Minor. (Classification tbd for one-lead course methods.) This wouldn't be
permitted under Option B because the place notation is a multiple of the
method with place notation -16, which is a principle with a 6-lead course
that has already been named as Original. This option would ensure that any
given plain course would be uniquely named. If Original hadn't already
been named, Plain Hunt Minor could have been validly named.
*Option C*: When a new method is rung, the Methods Committee decides what
should be the appropriate multiple or fraction of the place notation that
defines a lead of the method.
Example: A band rings the method with place notation -34-16-12-16-34-16, a
differential little alliance minor method with a two-lead course, and they
want to name it Evening Sun Differential Little Alliance Minor. The
Methods Committee looks at this and determines that this method is better
recorded in the CC Methods Collection with place notation
-34-16-12-16-34-16-34-16-12-16-34-16, a method with a one-lead course,
because this gives the treble a familiar treble bob hunting path (this is
Morning Star with a 6ths place lead end). The Methods Committee uses this
power to ensure that any given plain course is uniquely named.
*Option D*: None of the above. Methods may not have divisible place
Example: Under Option D, in the examples above, Magenta Little Place is
renamed in the CC Methods Collection as Magenta Differential with a two-row
lead. Plain Hunt is not a valid method (even if one-lead course methods
are allowed) because it divides down to Original. 6ths place Morning Star
is not allowed (again, even if one-lead course methods are allowed) because
it divides down to Evening Sun Differential Little Alliance Minor. This
option ensures not only that any given plain course is uniquely named, but
also uniquely classified.
Are there any other options that should be included, or should we put this
to a vote?
More information about the ringing-theory