[r-t] Results of Poll on Consecutive Blows in the Same Position

[Tim Barnes]

The question was: In a method, what should be the restriction on the number
of consecutive blows in the same position? (Select one answer)

The results were:

*A:* A maximum of 4 blows for all stages except Minimus.  This is the
status quo (Decision (E) A 6): *4 votes*

*B:* A finite number greater than 4 (such as 6 or 8), with the actual
number to be determined if this option proves popular: *0 votes*

*C:* No bell can make the same place consecutively for all of a method's
changes (so for a method with n changes, the limit would be n-1): *9 votes*

*D:* There should be no restriction on the number of consecutive blows in
the same position: *17 votes*

Total votes: *30*

*D* is therefore the winner with 57% of the vote.

Optional comments that people entered are as follows:

- More than 2 consecutive blows in the same position should only be allowed
in minimus and doubles up to a maximum of 4. If you allow more than 2
consecutive blows in the same position above doubles then you are basically
ringing call changes and not change ringing.

- No's 1 and 2 seem silly. no. 3 is ill posed until we have a good notion
of lead, which I think doesn't exist in the generality we're currently
discussing.

- No bell should remain in the same position for the duration of the entire
lead.

- Commonsense will dictate which methods make it past the novelty stage so
I urge no restraints.

- Limit should be number of changes in lead minus one.

- But a block method may be acceptable for no restriction

You can also view the results in SurveyMonkey via this link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-FT6G85NV/

Also, a reminder to please vote in the null change poll if you haven't
already done so.  Here is the link again.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L8FHDDQ

The null change poll will close on Tuesday night.

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20150104/459e56ce/attachment-0003.html>