[r-t] A Ringing Puzzle

[Matthew Frye]

On 23 May 2014, at 14:40, Ted Steele <teds.bells at tesco.net> wrote:
> Methods are given a name with the possibility in mind that they will become part of the ringers stock and be rung again. The blocks under discussion are I believe very unlikely to be used except in the original compositions of which they are part, or derivatives thereof. It is arguable that they have more to do with compositions than they do with methods. They are almost like extremely long calls spread over a number of rows. Why not just recognise them as special compositional  blocks with a special purpose of linking up other methods, or indeed of standing alone,

One of the most sensible things I've seen written on this topic. Moving these awkward bits into the rules on calls and compositions solves a large proportion of the complaints from both sides. What it *doesn't* solve, however, is Don's example of two methods/compositions which appear very similar being classified so differently.

I suspect a prominent objection might be along the lines of "But what happens if someone rings *just* these shunt blocks (or whatever) without an actual method". If the composition did indeed look like that (not unlike a Stedman composition made entirely of turning courses) that would be fine, but if you tried to ring Don's earlier example like that, I think it should not be classed as progress.

> Is this all too simple?

Quite possibly, but the CC definitions are in dire need of a healthy dose of "simple".

MF