[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>
wrote:

> The key, I think, is to get away from the idea that all methods should
> fall into a well-defined class.  Once we accept that a method might be
> unclassified, we can tighten up the definition of the classes to reflect
> their normal use.
>

Agreed.  I've wondered in the past whether the reason the Decisions require
classification of everything is that because the 'principle' class doesn't
have a corresponding method title word, it's only by classifying everything
else with a corresponding word (e.g. 'Hybrid') that you can deduce from a
method title (by the absence of a class word) that a method is a principle.

Regardless, I don't think it matters if, in the future, you can't tell from
the title whether a method is a principle or unclassified.  With websites
like complib.org <http://CompLib.org>, it's quick and easy to look up a
method and see its properties.  The subgroup document similarly treated
dynamic methods and methods with jump changes as unclassified.

I also like the concept of tightening up the classes to only cover their
normal use.  But the below would still allow some oddities, such as the 6th
being the hunt bell -- was that intended?


* Little and Differential only apply to classified methods.
>

Little makes sense, but did you intend this for differential?  The latter
seems a useful classification for true differentials (i.e. not short
course) even if the method doesn't further classify into Plain, Treble
Dodging, etc.


In this classification five of the quark methods become unclassified, with
> the Bottom and Meson being short-course principles.  But the difference
> between unclassified and a principle doesn't affect the name, so they can
> all be named similarly, e.g. "Top Maximus".  Most link methods commonly
> used in cyclic max also become unclassified (though not Magenta).


So pasting and amending the language of the subgroup document, I think your
proposal would result in the following.  (I've used "1st's Place" as the
doc doesn't currently define Leading.)

*Plain Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards; and
2. The Hunt Bell rings exactly two times in each Place during a Plain Lead

*Treble Dodging Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Hunt Bell rings exactly four times in each Place during a Plain
Lead; and
3. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place exactly twice within a Plain Lead

*Treble Place Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Hunt Bell rings the same number of times in each Place during a
Plain Lead; and
3. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place more than twice within a Plain Lead, exactly
one of which is in 1st's Place

*Alliance Method:* A Hunt Method or Differential Hunt Method in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is the same if it is rung backwards;
2. The Hunt Bell does not ring the same number of times in each Place
within a Plain Lead; and
3. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place exactly twice within a Plain Lead, exactly
one of which is in 1st's Place

*Little Method:* A Plain, Treble Dodging, Treble Place or Alliance Method
in which:
1. The Path of the Hunt Bell is restricted to fewer Places than the Stage
of the Method; and
2. The Hunt Bell Makes a Place exactly once in 1st's Place

Is that right?

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20160603/b65d61fa/attachment-0002.html>