[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

[Graham John]

Ander wrote:

> Very simple definition involving the
> notions of changes, length, truth,
> WITH NO MENTION OF METHODS OR CALLS

Absolutely, and in off list discussion before Tim started his polls, this is
exactly what I had envisaged, and in my first cut I started with  the
Methods Committee's definition of Round Block from the XML specification,
namely:

Round Block: A round block is an ordered sequence of rows (each at the same
stage) produced by a sequence of two or more changes where the final change
in the sequence produces the initial row of the block. A round block B is
said to be a rotation of a round block A if the sequence of changes that
produces B is a rotation of the sequence of changes that produces A.

And then simply:

Peal: One or more Round Blocks comprising at least 5000 changes in total.

Quarter peal: One or more Round Blocks comprising at least 1250 changes in
total.

Touch: A Round Block where bells are affected by calls and/or changes of
method.

True: A Round Block is considered true if all its rows are distinct, or if
longer than one extent, are distinct if the rows from any complete extents
are excluded. A peal, quarter peal, touch, or plain course is considered
true if it is a true round block in its entirety, excluding a cover bell. If
a performance contains round blocks at two stages, one with a cover bell and
one without, the truth of the two stages are considered independently.

My aim was just to minimally define the terms, rather than what is allowed
and not allowed. For example I didn't include truth in the definition of a
peal. In definition terms you might ring false peals and true ones. The CC
can then decide how it uses the definitions in its decisions e.g. only true
peals are recorded.

We subsequently had a discussion about  different views on what Round Block
meant, but in principle it achieves what Ander is advocating.
 
Graham