[r-t] Minor Blocks

[Tim Barnes]

>
> On Jun 24, 2014 4:27 PM, "Matthew Frye" <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Out of interest, how would this entity [6ths place Morning Star] be
classified in your proposed decision? Your 1.B.1 seems to force this into
being classified as the 2,2 differential hunter (or whatever equivalent
classification exists in your decisions). This is non-ideal (in my opinion)
but can't see a way to fix it without messing up the entire point of that
decision, which I think is generally a good idea.
>

Yes, you're right - I've been grappling with this since realizing the
problem last night.

To recap, a rule I included was that a method could not have changes that
are divisible into equal parts.  This was to ensure that the same method
couldn't be classified in more than one way.  PABS pointed out that this
would force a re-class of Magenta Little Place Max.  GACJ kindly did some
research and showed that Magenta was the only existing method that has a
divisible place notation.  So the impact of this re-class would be small,
and there was some suggestion that Magenta is more like a differential
principle than a plain little hunter anyway.

But now we're looking at group A methods but using 6ths place lead ends,
giving methods with one-lead courses.  Currently these are barred on the
strength of plural terms used in the Decisions (although see below), but my
view was that they should be allowed (can't see a good reason to exclude
them).

However I'm guessing there are a fair number of these one-lead course
methods that would have place notations that divide into two equal parts.
 6ths place Morning Star is the example raised.  My current language would
force this to be a little hybrid hunter with two hunt bells (the 4 and 5!)
and a 2-lead course.  This clearly wouldn't be the way it would be rung,
leading again to the rules not reflecting what ringers think they're doing.
 (AGR pointed out that the current rules would allow 6ths place Morning
Star as a method when defined in this 2-lead course way.)

The only solution I've come up with so far is that the 'no divisibility'
rule would have to be replaced with one that says something like (not these
words) "a new method's place notation can't be a multiple or a factor of an
existing method's place notation".  This would allow 6th place Morning Star
to be named as a one-lead treble bob hunter, while then preventing the
two-lead little hybrid with the same plain course from subsequently being
named.

Magenta could also then be left alone using this same approach.

So in some cases it would be down to the first person ringing a new method
to pick which classification it will have.  But clearly it's far from ideal
having a classification system that involves choice.  I therefore hope
someone can come up with a better way of handling this!

TJB

P.S. Thanks DFM for pointing out that blocks don't count towards something
being spliced.  They must be second class citizens...