robin at robinw.org.uk
Tue Jun 17 16:28:25 UTC 2014
I wonder how many have read Tim Barnes decisions?
This current debate was predicated on the lie that the CC tells ringers
what they may or may not ring. Careful persual of these latest decisions
show that this is precisely what they wish to achieve.
For example: "Ringers are asked to comply with these Decisions relating
to Touches if they wish to describe what they've rung as a Touch" Note
here that a touch is defined as <1250 changes.
The tenor of the decisions includes rules for quarter peals also:
"Quarter Peals are eligible to be published in the Ringing World
magazine and stored in the Ringing World's databases if ringers choose
to submit them to the Ringing World. Ringers are asked to comply with
these Decisions relating to Quarter Peals if they wish to describe
what they've rung as a Quarter Peal"
Extension: "When a Method has been named at a certain Stage, a Method
that produces similar looking Paths may be obtained at other Stages. It
is acknowledged that no consistent set of rules about extending or
reducing a Method to other Stages can work in all cases. When naming a
new Method, a band is encouraged to only use the name of an existing
Method at a different Stage when it will be generally agreed that there
are sufficient similarities to justify this."
Here's a setting for endless rows (arguments, not permutations)! The
current Extension decision at least has a solid objective basis - i.e.,
place notation. This is to be replaced with subjective ethereal rules -
'I think my line for this extension is correct and I'm not going to
listen to anyone else who may say different.'
Here's my version of 1A1 and 1A2
1A1 Row: a member of the permutation group Sn where n = number of bells.
1A2 Rounds: the identity of Sn.
In conclusion, it seems that this is replacing *some* rules for peals
with rules for *everything*. At least we can be on safe ground when we
say that much of these decisions will be ignored by the vast majority of
ringers. You know the sort I mean, those struggling with Plain Bob
Minor, or as chuffed as a bowl of badger fat when they ring a course of
London S Minor. There is more than a whiff of metropolitan superiority
in these decisions. Some of it is good, but a lot isn't.
The new proposals are far more restrictive than anything we have had
previously. If they are not meant to be restrictive, then why are they
included? It is also a general rule of *life* that suggestions become
PS - *some* may find this patronising "...While these Decisions apply
the 5000 Change minimum Length requirement to Peals at all Stages,
ringers may wish to continue the established practice of Peals of
Triples having no less than 5040 Changes"
PPS - what about minor peals?
More information about the ringing-theory