[r-t] Sacred cows

[Frederick Karl Kepner DuPuy]

Thanks for your suspiciously prompt response. My replies are interspersed
below.

On 7 October 2015 at 00:05, Philip Earis <pje24 at cantab.net> wrote:

> Rick DuPuy: “...the framework is still chock full of prescriptive rules
> which a performance must follow to qualify as a 'peal'...So let me ask: did
> the rules subgroup consider these particular sacred cows?”
>
> I think there are three areas of confusion (or perhaps fallacies) in your
> reasoning:
>
> 1) Most importantly, you seem to lump together all “sacred cows”. However,
> any possible constraints fall into two distinct (and to mind my very
> different) areas: on the one hand the actual sequences of permutations that
> are rung, and on the other hand how those permutations are rung.
>
> Now a descriptive approach should, I feel, contain as few restrictions on
> the sequences of permutations that are rung as possible whilst still
> providing a coherent, consistent framework that reflects change ringing.
>
> The existing Decisions contain all manner of arbitrary restrictions and
> value judgements, some plain daft, on what sequences of permutations are
> permissible. The new framework aims to eliminate and simplify as much as
> possible here...as the companion document states, the main axiomatic
> constraints are simply that sequences of true permutations must be rung.
> To my mind this is very laudable.
>
> All of the “sacred cow” examples you list (relays of ringers, external
> aids, standers-behind) relate to the second (and distinct) area of *how*
> ringing is done.  It is important to realise this is a distinct area.  The
> framework aims to provide these criteria so that standard performances are
> comparable.  If I press start on Abel and let the computer ring a peal, I
> don’t regard that as me having rung a peal, and I am sure the consensus of
> ringers would be the same.  So I have no issue myself with formulising some
> constraints on what constitutes a standard performance.
>

I agree that there is a distinction to be made; and, indeed, my message
drew such a line between the method definitions (with which I did not
quibble) and the 'standard performance' definitions (with which I did).

Using this simple rule-of-thumb dividing line, it seems to me that all the
sacred cows I mentioned (both those whose imminent demise I lamented and
also the others whose continued survival I questioned) lie together on the
same side — none of them are hair-splitting rules on how we arrange the
rows; all of them go to the fundamental question of just what is the
essence of a standard performance.

Now perhaps you draw the line in a slightly different place than I do. But
no matter where you draw it, the prohibition of peals on simulators must
surely land squarely on the *how* side; yet they are for the chopping block
while the other sacred cows are not.



> 2) The constraints included in the new framework relate to standard
> performances, with the explicit statement that this is not a value
> judgement on performances that do not adhere to the framework.
>

Absolutely! But this would not be a significant change from the present
situation under the decisions. People can ring non-compliant performances
if they wish (under either system); there is no shame in doing so; but (in
official channels, at least) the word 'peal' is deprecated for such
performances.

So what's your point?



> 3) The “rules subgroup” was and is an open-to-all collaborative effort,
> aiming to capture and codify broadly consensus opinions of people with
> knowledge and interest in the area.  The working and development of the
> draft documents has been extremely open, vastly more so than the
> pronouncements from on high of the secretive cabal that is the Methods
> Committee.  Many people have contributed to the subgroup, and I am sure
> that what is produced doesn’t fully satisfy anyone (me included)...but it
> has been a productive and instructive exercise, and has produced something
> which is much better than the status quo.
>

Nothing in my message was intended to disparage the work of the rules
subgroup, or to praise the work of the methods committee (about which I
cheerfully admit to knowing nothing). I am happy to join you in praising
the subgroup's procedure, but I don't see how that's a reply to any of my
arguments.

Rick





>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20151007/8b451623/attachment-0003.html>