[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
wrote:

> Philip makes a good point here, and the wording needs to be reviewed
> for this in Tim's document too. People are generally happy to accept
> peals following mis-calls, provided that amendments to the calling by
> the conductor result in a true composition. This includes compositions
> that are later confirmed as true when the wrong method has been called
> in Spliced.
>

The Decisions on correcting calls and errors seem another area where all
the options are undesirable in some way.

1.  Have something unrealistic -- "shall be corrected immediately" -- the
current approach.  It's never good to have rules that are routinely broken.

2.  Have something prescriptive -- errors must be corrected within x leads,
y blows or z seconds.  Probably unworkable and we're trying to get away
from prescription.

3.  Say nothing on the correction of errors.  A conductor might swap two
bells back in the last lead of a peal that had crossed an hour earlier, and
those objecting to the peal being published would have nothing to point to
to tell the conductor that was inappropriate.

4.  Use somewhat vague language, such as "as quickly as possible", to give
some sense that errors matter and shouldn't be allowed to persist.
Requires interpretation by individual bands / conductors, so standards will
vary.

The rules subgroup went with #4.  It wasn't intended that this language
would apply to a conductor who is clever enough (or lucky enough) to be
able to recompose a true composition on the fly after a miscall, so this
would need to be clarified.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170322/d8bdcbf9/attachment.html>