tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 21 14:20:15 UTC 2014
On Jun 17, 2014 12:28 PM, "Robin Woolley" <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.
> ... In conclusion, it seems that this is replacing *some* rules for peals
with rules for *everything*.
Fair point - if having rules is what's causing problems, why add more. I'm
not of the school of thought that says there should be no rules. It's
common for sports and other pastimes to have a central body that organizes
the rules of the game, and I think the benefits of this approach outweigh
the negatives by a good margin. In our case, I think it's a question of
finding the right rules that don't impose unnecessary restrictions, but
still provide a framework so we all know what was done when we read about a
ringing performance. In my view the right set of rules would include a
good mechanism for their update when appropriate, and the rules would be as
simple as can get the job done, as well as being clearly presented, so that
as many ringers as possible can follow them.
At the moment I'd argue we have too many rules in some areas and not enough
in others. In terms of what constitutes change ringing, if it starts and
ends in rounds and is true, I don't see that much more is needed. (Though
even this requires some definition when ringing more than an extent, or
ringing at dual stages.) The rest is then about classifying what was rung
(preferably using straightforward classifications that would generally be
apparent when ringing the method), and including appropriate qualitative
standards (no visual aids, etc).
But in other areas I think some expansion would be beneficial. I'd like to
see QPs and Half Peals included in the rules. In the case of QPs, I hope
this would reduce the practice by some of ringing and publishing false QPs,
which seems outside the spirit of what we do. Others have made the point
that formalizing QPs could then allow methods (Triples and above) to be
named by ringing them to QPs, which seems fair. In the case of Half Peals,
I hope their formalization might make them more popular as I believe they
could be useful for band development.
Changing rules of any type by majority vote is, of course, rarely plain
sailing - there will be lots of different views on what should be done,
including the view that nothing needs to be done. But with the CC having
passed a motion that a re-think is needed (itself no small achievement - I
can imagine this involved a fair amount of behind the scenes work), I hope
the opportunity will be taken to improve on what we have now.
> There is more than a whiff of metropolitan superiority in these decisions.
Hopefully collaboration to improve the wording could remove all such
> 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.
Right, but with an aim of having rules (including the definitions behind
them) that as many ringers as possible can follow, I'd suggest that
technical equivalents of the rules could be documented separately.
More information about the ringing-theory