[r-t] Time to vote?

[Andrew Johnson]

> From: Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com>
> > 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.
With the rule change allowing calls to omit rows of a lead of a method 
then
I suspect you can ring a peal of Cambridge but call it as a peal of all 
the
rotations of Cambridge, together with calls that omit enough changes to
keep the treble on the same path. Loads of names of methods for no effort,
and it would annoy some other ringers - a band is bound to do it.
The record for most methods in a peal could look pretty silly.

Perhaps we need a rule like the Football Association: of 'bringing the
game into disrepute'. We might already have one: 'That in the opinion 
of the Council the publication of palpably false compositions and 
worthless methods reflects discredit on their composers.' 
I'd like to see the methods committee put a few methods up for a vote
at each CC meeting to see if they qualify. It might liven up things.

Andrew Johnson

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU