Fwd: Motion to change the Decisions on Peals, Methods and Calls

[Graham John]

I had a very rapid response from Peter.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Niblett <peter....@btinternet.com>
Date: 27 May 2016 at 02:15
Subject: Re: Motion to change the Decisions on Peals, Methods and Calls
To: Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk>

Hi Graham

Thank you for your comments - I have had some similar ones from Don, which I will answer tomorrow, but here's a quick reply to yours.  Let me just say that the intention of [G] was to get started by tackling some things around which there's likely to be consensus. This would establish the principle of getting some change underway and then we can build on this (and tackle more controversial points) next year.

Change 1.

We were trying to tackle the most common case here, which is adding one short touch, particularly as a peal like this was rung last year, and it's something that people might find easier to understand than an MEB one.  This area of the Decisions is a bit complex and could do with some re-structuring, so it seemed better to tackle the MEB question you raised then.  Also there is some opposition to the idea of not having exactly the same number of each row for Doubles and Minor, so I wanted to get the basic principle that's ok to have n/n-1 established first.

Change 2.

Yes I know, and I thought you weren't keen on Cheeky or Itram being there in the first place.

Change 3.

As I tried to say in the notes, we were basing the new ability to name for "Triples and above" on the existing one for Doubles and Minor which requires you to ring a single method. 

I think there are two different things here: naming a method because you want to name a new method (in which case  you could argue it's not unreasonable to say that you should ring a single-method performance) and composing or ringing a spliced peal composition that happens to include new methods (in which case it would be unreasonable to require you to have named all the new methods first). 

I guess you would argue that that second point should apply to quarter-peal composers as well.

Your retrospection question is an interesting one, but how far back would we go?  We also don't know how complete Tony's list is. The issue you are worried about exists today, but (with one notable and I think accidental exception) people naming methods that are on the provisional list do respect the original name.

Change 4.

I think it's only the combination of 'alter' and 'omit' that makes sense (e.g. a call that affects the treble but keeps it as the treble by jumping to a different part of the lead) - do you have any other examples?

Regards

Peter

[Don Morrison]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
Date: Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [rt-rules-subgroup] Fwd: Motion to change the Decisions on Peals, Methods and Calls
To: Peter Niblett <peter....@btinternet.com>

Graham John forwarded a message in which you asked:

> Change 4.

>

> I think it's only the combination of 'alter' and 'omit' that makes

> sense (e.g. a call that affects the treble but keeps it as the

> treble by jumping to a different part of the lead) - do you have any

> other examples?

Alter and add can also make sense. For example, it is possible the following block might be put to go

​od​

use in some way:

2,116 Cambridge Surprise Maximus

23456  H

________

64523  q

65432  s

24365  q

23456  s

________

s = 123456

q = replace the lead end 12 by 1678.12.1678

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"Men have become the tools of their tools."

       -- Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_

--

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
"After all these years I have observed that beauty, like happiness,
is frequent. A day does not pass when we are not, for an instant,
in paradise."  
        -- Jorge Luis Borges, _Los Conjurados_, tr Willis Barnstone

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> Graham John forwarded a message in which you asked:

> 

> > Change 4.

> >

> > I think it's only the combination of 'alter' and 'omit' that makes

> > sense (e.g. a call that affects the treble but keeps it as the

> > treble by jumping to a different part of the lead) - do you have any

> > other examples?

> 

> Alter and add can also make sense.

That can, of course, also be viewed as a combination of delete and add.

Perhaps the most straightforward and succinct way of dealing with calls is simply to say that a subsequence of zero or more changes is replaced by a new subsequence of zero or more changes, possibly of a different length. That gets rid of all those annoying, branching clauses (a), (b), (c)....

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"Appeals to reason or to the nature of the universe have been used

throughout history to enshrine existing hierarchies as proper and

inevitable. The hierarchies rarely endure for more than a few

generations, but the arguments, refurbished for the next round of

social institutions, cycle endlessly."

    -- Stephen Jay Gould, _The Mismeasure of Man_

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> Perhaps the most straightforward and succinct way of dealing with calls

While on the subject of calls, it is absurd that, while it is perfectly legal to use ordinary 58 half-lead bobs with this surprise major method

34x3.6x56x3x34x23.56x34.1,8

we are forbidden from using half-lead calls with this, nearly identical method

34x3.6x56x3x34x3x256.34.1,8

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"Study was never a one way thing. A man might spend his life peering

into the private life of elementary particles and then find he either

knew who he was or where he was, but not both."

                                      -- Terry Pratchett, _Hogfather_

[Don Morrison]

And here is his further reply, sent at roughly the same time, to another of my messages:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Niblett <peter....@btinternet.com>

Date: Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [rt-rules-subgroup] Fwd: Motion to change the Decisions on Peals, Methods and Calls
To: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

Hi Don

Maybe it's a bit late at night, but they both look "perfectly legal" to me. What am I missing?

Peter

---

From: Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>
To: Peter Niblett <peter....@btinternet.com>
Cc: rt-rules...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2016, 15:51
Subject: Re: [rt-rules-subgroup] Fwd: Motion to change the Decisions on Peals, Methods and Calls