[r-t] A New Hope

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Thu May 29 15:53:59 UTC 2014

On 28 May 2014, at 23:06, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:
> Let's have a new, general section in Decisions with some broad statements such as the following:
> [snip]
> 5.  The Council recognises that any attempt to accommodate
>  future innovation will inevitably lead to definitions that
>  also accommodate seemingly worthless performances.  The
>  Council does not believe it is practical to outlaw all
>  such performances and believes that any attempt to do so
>  risks stiffling innovation.

Perhaps add something along the lines of "The Council trusts that ringers themselves will judge what is and is not worthless and believes that worthwhile innovations will naturally become more commonplace and worthless innovations will be forgotten."
OK, probably not that strongly phrased - I particularly dislike the implicit binary classification of all innovations as either worthwhile or worthless - but I do feel it's an important sentiment to be added here that innovation will be tried in the court of "general opinion" (for some definition of "general" which might only extend to black-zone ringers or just to this list); the decision on "worth" should ultimately be made by those who ring the things, not the CC.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list