[r-t] Restriction #4

[Tim Barnes]

After a welcome break, on to the next rules question for those interested
in continuing the debates and polling.

To recap, we've been debating the restrictions that should be applied to
the general case that a method is any sequence of changes, where that
sequence generates a plain lead of the method.

We've debated and voted on 4 out of 6 potential restrictions so far,
deciding to eliminate #1, #2 and #3 below on clear-cut votes, but deciding
to keep restriction #6 on a very close vote.

A method:
1. Can't have a plain course that is false - ## eliminated ##
2. Can't have a divisible place notation, or can't have a method whose
place notation is a fraction or multiple of another method - ## eliminated
##
3. Can't have a plain course that only has one lead - ## eliminated ##
4. Can't have more than 4 blows in one place
5. Can't include the null change
6. Can't be a rotation of another method - ## kept ##

Let's return to #4, which we started debating but then jumped to #6 before
concluding.  I'll re-send the last post on #4 so we can pick up from there.

For anyone new to this list, the brief background to these debates is
(quoting from the CC minutes following the controversial vote to
incorporate 'blocks' into the Decisions), "the strong groundswell of
opinion, both inside and outside the Council, that it was time for a
fundamental review of the relevant Decisions".  A motion was passed at the
May CC meeting that "The Methods Committee should begin work on
consultation about, and on developing the principles and fundamental
requirements of, a possible new or revised set of Decisions concerning Peal
Ringing, Methods and Calls..."

It's hoped that this debate on r-t, a list that includes many ringers who
are knowledgeable about and interested in ringing theory and concepts, will
provide useful input (albeit uninvited) to this review.  If the review
isn't forthcoming, as some anticipate, then perhaps the development of an
updated set of rules through debate on this list will provide a catalyst
for change via a grassroots-type movement.

Above all, these debates are intended to be interesting, informative and
hopefully entertaining!  The polling is probably unscientific and not
necessarily representative, but it's a starting point for gauging opinion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20141129/245892cd/attachment-0003.html>