[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

[Tim Barnes]

There were some interesting comments made in this poll, which I've pasted
in below.  In particular I've taken on board the comment that this poll was
too hastily run.  In future when a poll is proposed, we should spend some
time agreeing the wording and voting options for the poll, as well as
debating the question itself, before opening up the voting.  Thanks for
that feedback -- Tim

Comments from poll:
----------------------------------
Call changes are a kind of change ringing — but rounds by themselves are
not, since nothing has changed yet! Veronese ringing is not change ringing,
nor is firing. The essence of change ringing is that the ringing is a
series of rows (n>1), each of which is a permutation of the initial rounds.
Likewise, method-style ringing in this spirit, even if it includes
illegalities such as jump changes, is still change ringing (whether or not
we decide to call it method ringing). We can talk about the 'truth' of a
piece of call changes in much the same way as for method ringing, with the
exception that we're allowed to repeat a given row as many times as we like
before moving on — but once moving on we can't return. (And no matter how
many times we repeat a change, we only count it once for the purposes of
knowing how long our piece was.) False method ringing and false call
changes are still change ringing; but should always be labeled as false to
avoid confusion.
1/14/2015 3:14 PM

I think "change ringing" can only include methods (ill-defined) and call
changes. Although technically rounds is repeated null-changes it wouldn't
be sensible to include that as change ringing.
1/12/2015 6:45 AM

Change ringing is where a sequence of rows are committed to memory by one
means or another whereas call changes are individually instructed by the
conductor.
1/12/2015 3:36 AM

It does not include Rounds, but clearly has to include call changes as well
as method ringing as it is change ringing.
1/11/2015 5:48 PM

Although I would not round ringing per se in that definition but definitely
call change ringing
1/11/2015 5:23 PM

The term "call changes" is hard to argue with!
1/11/2015 5:20 PM

Both
1/11/2015 4:49 PM

Three points: 1. Jumping right into a poll so quickly seems a bit hasty. I
would have been a lot happier had we had a few days to discuss things, make
observations that may not be obvious to the voters for them to consider,
and possibly suggest better ways to word the choices before actually
voting. This sort of "one person puts up a pair of choices and everyone
immediately has to pick one or the other" process is an open invitation to
abusive behaviours with strawmen and the like. 2: "Change ringing" is
whatever it is that those who call themselves "change ringers" do. 3. To
instead base our definition on the normal English use of "change" is
ludicrous. By that yardstick we would have to include tuning a bell as a
kind of change ringing, since we ring the bell and change it in response to
the noise it makes.
1/11/2015 3:38 PM
 On Jan 14, 2015 11:16 PM, "Tim Barnes" <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are the results.  Quite decisive.
>
> Https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-GDZFT2HV/
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should have a vote on this, to find out how widespread each
>> definition is?
>>
>> Is the term change-ringing:
>>
>> (a) effectively synonymous with method ringing (whatever "method" might
>> be), or
>>
>> (b) does it include rounds and call changes?
>>
>
>
> Here's the poll:
>
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/732X26P
>
> Results on Wed night.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150115/6aa27d5c/attachment-0004.html>