[r-t] Latest draft of Decisions changes for 2017

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Thu Apr 20 23:55:17 UTC 2017

Andrew Johnson writes,

> I disagree with MBD on the effect of the decision. An error in calling
> could be corrected in this way and there is no need to deliberately set
> out to ring this to take advantage. Under the existing decisions
> conductors can and do recompose peals while ringing them, sometimes after
> a miscall, sometimes deliberately to aid the band by avoiding a tricky
> part.

This is a fair point, and I agree with your analysis. I suppose we have 
to analyse whether this is really a problem.

One thing I think is important, is to treat all stages the same. I don't 
think a peal of (say) Doubles should have any difference in the 
standards applied to it than (say) Triples. So a conductor can already 
miss a call in Doubles, add another extent, and carry on. If we're now 
saying a similar sort of thing is possible in Triples, are we bothered?

I don't know - what do people think?

There are certainly a number of benefits from relaxing the concept of 
truth when ringing more than an extent, and from making it consistent 
across all stages. I can see a lot of new development in Spliced Minor 
(can we squeeze more methods into a peal length?), and in Triples (let's 
ring that bobs-only Grandsire). Do the benefits in compositional 
innovation outweigh any potential devaluation in standards? It is 
important that change-ringing keeps adapting and moving forward.

There is a debate to be had here, for sure. It'll be interesting to see 
what happens at the CC meeting.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list