[r-t] Doubles 240s

[Graham John]

Tim put the question of null changes to a vote on r-t which is dominated by those of a mathematical background. I believe that if you put this to the wider ringing community, you would find that the majority will not understand the concept of no bells changing position being considered a change. This is clearly the view of the Council, since words to prevent their use were explicitly put into the decisions (in 1933, I think from looking at the minutes).

What I think we need to do now, in a more open and permissive climate, is to accommodate both views. The way to do that is to define the terms Simple Change, Null Change & Jump Change to be distinct (i.e. non overlapping), and then to remove the requirement that jump changes and null changes are not recognised in peals. That way, those who want to ring peals containing jump changes and null changes can do so, and those that don't can say that they only want to ring peals containing Simple Changes (i.e. equivalent to the current CCBBR definition). If the CC wants a reporting requirement to say how many jump changes and or null changes were included in a performance, then that is also easy to do.

Graham