tjbarnes23 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 12 12:08:31 UTC 2014
> Ummmmm, sorry for the delay...
Thanks for posting the results Matthew. I know I've enjoyed a month off
Thanks to everyone who voted. As we still had a good number of votes cast
despite the last question becoming quite convoluted, and as a few people
told me offline that they'd like to continue with these votes, I'll take
these as indications to press on with the next vote...
So recapping where we got to and setting up the next question to vote on:
Rough definitions: a method is any sequence of changes, normally
represented by place notations. If you ring that sequence of place
notations once, you've rung a plain lead. If you ring the sequence
repeatedly until you get back to rounds (at a lead end), you've rung a
plain course, and the number of times you had to repeat the sequence to get
back to rounds tells you how many leads there are in the plain course.
A method may be allowed or disallowed, depending on rules that may be
implemented to restrict what sequences of changes are permitted (see below).
A method can be named, with the name recorded centrally, or remain unnamed.
I think there are six possible restrictions on allowable sequences of
changes to debate, as listed below. All except #2 are part of the current
CC Decisions. We've already decided the first two of these.
In our first poll we agreed, with an 80% majority, that we don't want to
have restriction #1, so this is eliminated in the r-t consensus view.
In the results just announced, A and F were the favorites, and neither of
these imposed restriction #2, whereas B, C, D, and E did all impose some
form of restriction #2. So on this basis I think we can also say that the
r-t consensus view is to eliminate restriction #2. We can come back to how
we would implement groups of methods that are divisible - i.e. whether A or
F is the preferred approach.
This leaves restrictions 3 - 6 below to vote on. If we can reach clear
views on these, we'll know how a consensus of this list would define a
method, which would seem to be a worthwhile milestone to achieve, given
this whole debate started with the method vs. non-method block CC decision.
We could then move on to defining calls and cover bells, at which point
we'd have the building blocks for defining and setting requirements for
peals, QPs, etc.
*Potential restrictions on what is allowed as 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
4. Can't have more than 4 blows in one place
5. Can't have the null change
6. Can't be a rotation of another method
I suggest we take 3 - 6 in this order, and so discuss and vote on #3 next.
My view is that #3 can also be eliminated - I don't see anything wrong
with methods that only have one lead in their plain course (e.g. 2nds place
Bristol Major, n'ths place Plain Bob). What do others think? Does anyone
know how this restriction originally came about in the CC Decisions?
Hope this all makes sense..
More information about the ringing-theory