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