[r-t] A simpler approach?

Chris02 chris02 at shropshirelad.plus.com
Fri Oct 24 16:38:57 UTC 2014

I have been following the discussion of new rules on this list. It seems to
me that whilst it is fairly easy to devise a set of rules that cover 99% of
what is rung it will be impossible to ever have a set of rules that covers
all cases, allows for innovation and eliminates the silly stuff. Rather than
pursue this line, would a simpler approach be:

1. Have a set of simple and clear rules that cover the 99% of what is rung.
2. Have a special cases list for the methods that are worthy of ringing but
fall outside the rules. As well as the usual method stuff, the list could
include  a reason why it is included in the special cases.
3. The Methods Committee be custodians of the rules and special cases list.

I am imagining that the rules would be fairly tight and would ban things
like rotations, but methods like New Grandsire and the Kent/Oxford
variations could be included in the special cases list because of their
historical roots. Innovations like the link methods used in spliced maximus
would be included on the special cases list because of the benefits they
bring. However, silly things like Graham John's example of the peal of
Cambridge Major being called umpteen spliced would be excluded.

I realise there would still be room for debate about what goes on the
special cases list, but the discussion would be limited to the merits of the
special case rather than the can of worms on how the rules could be amended.

Is this a sensible idea?

Chris Adams

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list