[r-t] Method extension

Roddy Horton roddy at horton.karoo.co.uk
Wed Apr 29 09:57:23 UTC 2015

Simon : 
>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
about it.

>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
the band."


ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list