[r-t] Time to vote?

[Ian McCulloch]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Tim Barnes wrote:

>> Graham:
>> Would there be any guidance on how spliced is recorded?
>> Presumably someone could ring 5056 Cambridge Surprise Major by C
> Middleton as 5056 Spliced Surprise Major (4m) comprising 1344 Cambridge;
> 1344 Cambridge-at-the-snap; 1344 Cambridge-at-the-halflead; 1024
> Cambridge-at-the-quarterlead; with x com and atw. So three (or potentially
> up to 31) new methods would be named when all that has been rung is a peal
> of Cambridge.
>
> I know many people will already have voted(!) but yes, people could do what
> you describe above.  They could also under today's rules create 20 new
> methods that are each Cambridge but with one place notation altered.  They
> could then claim a peal of 20-spliced and name 20 new methods, but use
> calls that switch each altered place notation back to Cambridge.  So like
> your example, all they did was ring Cambridge.

I know someone who was considering something similar with spliced (every 
whole-pull or every two-whole-pulls?) such that they rang some very large 
number methods but the line actually ended up identical to cambridge.

Who cares if someone can name things in a silly way?  Someone might do it 
once just for kicks but it isn't likely to catch on.

What I'd like to see is some constraint that the naming follows in some 
way what is actually called.  Eg, if you really want, ring 31 rotations of 
cambridge but if you're going to give then different names then you must 
use those names in the composition and call the peal that way, eg the 
conductor has to cerify that the composition was called as described. 
That might give problems for silent / unconducted peals though.

Ringing a peal of cambridge but sending it up as a peal of spliced 
isn't good form, but really, is it worth jumping through hoops to forbid 
it?

> It's back to the point of not being able to legislate away silliness, and
> because we can't, I think it's best not to add complexity to the rules by
> trying to.

Definitely agree.

Cheers,
Ian