[r-t] Time to vote?

[Tim Barnes]

> Graham:
> Why create more ambiguity by allowing a method to
be defined in different ways?

I would have agreed with this had it not been for the fact that we already
agreed that both Magenta and its differential counterpart can be separately
named.

This decision in turn seemed partly  influenced by the fact that a method
such as Stedman can be expressed as Erin and Bastow.

In other words, we can't eliminate all inconsistencies.  It therefore now
seems to me inconsistent to insist on consistency for rotations.  If we're
going to have inconsistency, we should be consistently inconsistent!
Especially when it also simplifies the rules - one less restriction.

I know the rotation question is not exactly the same as the Magenta and
Erin/Bastow situations.  But is it sufficiently different to warrant
different treatment?

The Method Collections are a model of consistency - one unique name for one
unique sequence of changes.  The data is also fully static and needs no
ongoing maintenance.  So even if allowing rotations increased the number of
records in the Collections, this seems of little concern.  I appreciate
that someone has to enter each new row, but this is limited by the number
of ringers there are to ring new things.

TJB