[r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
King, Peter R
peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Mon May 30 21:15:39 UTC 2016
First of all congratulations, there may now be some rationale on the methods committee.
I have never understood the concept of a "non method" block. As far as I am concerned any collection of place notations (repeated or not as the case may be) will create a method. The problem then is to describe this method in terms of existing or new classifications. The term "non-method block" seems very clumsy, although several bands made some very humorous use of the term "block" in method names which it would be a shame to loose!
From: ringing-theory [mailto:ringing-theory-bounces at bellringers.net] On Behalf Of Mark Davies
Sent: 30 May 2016 20:28
To: ringing-theory at bellringers.net
Subject: Re: [r-t] ?CCBR meeting - Methcom proposals
OK I have now been elected to the methods committee. The meeting did pass motions G and H, really without anything in the way of dissent.
That means, roughly,
1. A 5100 of Doubles (for example) is a peal.
2. Places longer than 4 blows can be in methods on stages higher than Minimus (Erin Major anyone?).
3. New methods can be named by ringing a quarter-peal (Triples and higher stages affected).
4. Calls can extend the length of a lead.
5. Handbell peals of minimus are all good.
Clearly there is more to do, but I reckon this is a good start. I need to find out exactly what happens to "blocks" which now become accepted as methods under point (2). I think the idea was to retain "Block" in the method name. What are everyone's thoughts here?
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
ringing-theory mailing list
ringing-theory at bellringers.net
More information about the ringing-theory