# [r-t] Triples and below (was 'Rules', and before that 'A date to pencil into your calendar')

Thu Sep 10 05:59:55 UTC 2015

```Sorry to be slow in responding. My replies are interspersed below.

On 6 September 2015 at 08:27, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Ø  I admit that peals of triples and minor which include a partial extent
> beyond 5040 are an interesting question meriting further discussion; I
> admit that performances of 5016 minimus are tricky too (not that I can
> imagine anybody wanting to ring them).
>
>
>
> I’m curious why you view a 5016 of Minimus as tricky.  If your view is
> that Minimus peals must be a minimum of 5040 changes, aren’t you taking a
> number that has significance at Stage 7 and anomalously projecting it onto
> Stage 4 where the number doesn’t have any particular significance?
>

Yeah, sorry, maybe 'tricky' was the wrong word; I wasn't trying to suggest
that I've been losing any sleep over the question!

We could have a definition of 'peal' for seven bells and below which
requires whole extents; or we could have one which sets the minimum at 5040
rows. We should choose between these on their own merits; I don't really
care about the implications for 5016 Minimus (which would be a peal under
the former wording and not under the latter) — it doesn't seem important to
me.

Ø  But put those aside for the moment. As I read these rules, they would
> allow 'peals' of triples less than 5040 rows long. Can it really be that
> people think that uncontroversial?
>
>
>
> Yes, the proposal as currently written would allow, say, a 5012 of
> Grandsire Triples as a Peal.  The arguments in favor are (1) we don’t worry
> about ringing partial extents of major and above as peals,
>

Well, but that's because extents aren't typically feasible on major and
above, whereas on triples and below they obviously are. It's the 'do your
best within the constraints of reality' principle -- no shame in that.

(2) we don’t worry about ringing QPs / date touches / half peals of Triples
> that are partial extents,
>

I don't see the relevance. QPs and half-peals are defined by reference to
peals, not the reverse; and of course as people love to say 'there are no
rules for QPs' anyhow. (Or there haven't been up to now, at least.)

and (3) bands are still free to choose only to ring peals of Triples in
> whole extents if that’s their preference.
>

Why do peals require truth and forbid ringing in relays? If we relaxed
those rules, band* could still choose to follow them!

[*Bands of uptight people, by implication?]

[Side note: personally, I'd be happy to see ringing in relays make a
comeback. Seems like a fun idea!]

I view defining standard lengths (or more precisely, standard length
> ranges) consistently across all stages as progress (i.e. QP = 1250 to 2499
> changes, Half Peal = 2500 to 4999 changes, Peal = 5000+ changes).
>

If consistency is an important concern, it could easily be accommodated by
making 5040 the peal threshold (on all stages) rather than 5000. Why not?
Sounds like a fair compromise.

Best,
Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20150910/e3394461/attachment-0002.html>
```