[r-t] Opinions sought

[Alexander E Holroyd]

In my view this whole discussion typifies the way the framing and 
approach is all wrong.  (I appear to be in a minority here among those 
who tend to discuss these things, although not necessarily among the 
wider ringing world).

There is no need for a formal definition of "spliced", any more than 
there is for terms like "tail end" and "tower outing".

Spliced refers to a piece of change ringing composed of more than one 
method.  That is all anyone should ever need.

Then, if someone wants to use the term in an unconventional way not 
originally invisaged, either they are exploring exciting new ground, or 
perhaps they are just being silly.  Either way, why restrict them?  In 
the former case it could be viewed as yet another sad attempt to 
discourage innovation.  In the latter, why care?

Imagine for a minute if we tried to that with "tower outing".  (This is 
a serious thought experiment - sometimes it helps to apply ideas to a 
different realm to see what the problems are).  Someone might propose 
that it should be defined as at least x towers with at least y% of the 
ringers belonging to a home tower band.  Ah, someone would say, but we 
need to distinguish it from a tower grab, so there must be at least z 
minutes spent at each tower.  Then, someone would chime in with the 
usual irrelevant objection: "But if you define it that way then someone 
could do such-and-such daft thing and describe it as a tower outing". 
Or maybe they could do something that clearly is a tower outing but 
perversely describe it as simply a sequence of visits to other towers. 
Etc.  Well, quite.  So what?  If daft people want to describe their 
activities in daft ways, let them.  If one's really concerned about it, 
avoiding having daft rules to provoke troublemakers would be a good start.

Apologies if this offends anyone.  That's not my intention at all.  I 
just think people are on the wrong track, and wasting their effort and 
intellect...

cheers, Ander