[r-t] Method extension

Simon Humphrey sh53246 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 09:21:54 UTC 2015

Roddy Horton:

> Can we not just define what we know is beyond doubt and that which serves
> a useful purpose (Treble Dodging, Surprise, Treble Bob, Alliance, Plain
> etc) 

I'm not against classifying methods as Surprise, Delight, and Treble Bob but
I don't think it does serve any useful purpose, especially on higher
numbers.  We only keep them for historical reasons.  And while on the
subject, if we're going to keep these classes why not bring back "Exercise"
as well?

> and leave the rest to the band's discretion with the ability of the
> Council to intervene if as Philip says " where a band's naming appears
> wilfully perverse ".
> I do not believe that there are many bands who would deliberately do silly
> things, and if they do, then so what? 

How would the Council decide some particular name was perverse if there was
no framework or guidance for method extension and naming?  And similarly how
could a band deliberately do something silly if there was no framework
against which silliness could be judged?

> If the method they rang is worth
> ringing it will be rung again whatever the name. If it is false in the
> Plain Course but they rang a true peal of it, who cares about what they
> didn't ring?

I totally agree.

> I believe the current decisions are far too complex and do not actually
> produce a framework that ringers can understand. They seem to focus far
> too much on place notation, which is after all only a shorthand tool to
> describe the method, and the existence of so many established exceptions
> make the rules a farce to me.
> As we cannot come up with a set of comprehensive, all encompassing rules
> then let's have a minimalist approach and leave things to the discretion
> of the bands.

Again, how could a band exercise discretion if there are no rules at all?
Historical precedent?  Isn't that what's got us into this mess in the first


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list