[r-t] Method extension
roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk
Wed Apr 29 09:57:23 UTC 2015
>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?
Bring it back if it helps.
>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?
Let them be silly and ignore them. The less rules there are the less there
is the need for a band to test them and then waste everyone's time arguing
>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
Ok - bad choice of words on my part - change to "leave it to the choice of
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory