simultaneous peals of minor

[John David]

Hi All

In such a peal or quarter:

Is  "truth" of each 720 (front and back) sufficient, or does the whole thing have to be true as if it were maximus (and in that case, presumable if both bits came round at the end  of a minor extent at the same time, it would be false)?

And, do both front and back have to start at the same time? 

I know this may be pernickity and simplistic.

John David

[John Harrison]

> Is "truth" of each 720 (front and back) sufficient, or does the whole
> thing have to be true as if it were maximus

That's an open question since the only authoritative thing around (the CC
Decisions) excludes such performances, unless redefined as some
horrendously contrived Maximus method(s) or possibly even a single
non-method block.

Applying the 'common sense' criterion simultaneous Minor could be subject
to the same truth criteria as Minor, but applied simultaneously. Obviously
there would be an additional challenge to make it comply with 12 bell truth
criteria as well, which I suspect may be what was done here - though I've
not worked out the figures to check.

> if both bits came round at the end of a minor extent at the same time,

> it would be false?

There were no extents in this case, which is why I suspect it may meet 12
bell truth criteria. A 1296 can't meet the 6 bell truth criterion in the
current Decisions though it could meet the one in Tim's proposed revision.
I haven't checked whether these compositions would do so, but if together
they meet the 12 bell criterion I think that should take precedence.

--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

[Alexander Holroyd]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2015, John Harrison wrote:

>> Is "truth" of each 720 (front and back) sufficient, or does the whole
>> thing have to be true as if it were maximus
>
> That's an open question since the only authoritative thing around (the CC
> Decisions) excludes such performances, unless redefined as some
> horrendously contrived Maximus method(s) or possibly even a single
> non-method block.
>
> Applying the 'common sense' criterion simultaneous Minor could be subject
> to the same truth criteria as Minor, but applied simultaneously. Obviously
> there would be an additional challenge to make it comply with 12 bell truth
> criteria as well, which I suspect may be what was done here - though I've
> not worked out the figures to check.

To me this thinking is backwards. To me common sense says that truth
should mean the same thing regardless of the details of method
construction. So it should be 12-bell truth that applies here.

I simply don't understand the use of the phrase "unless redefined as some
horrendously contrived Maximus method(s)"? To me there is nothing
horrendously contrived about the concept "Cambridge Minor on the front and
back sixes". (I'm not saying I want to ring it - that's a separate
question). There is no "redefinition" involved in calling it that - it
was that all along. Why is that a problem? Actually I don't even see any
reason why it contravenes existing rules.

[Graham John]

Ander wrote:

> To me this thinking is backwards.  To me common sense says that truth should mean the same thing regardless of the details of method construction.  So it should be 12-bell truth that applies here.

I agree. The only way of arguing something different is to say that they were two independent quarterpeals, which is a poor argument, and would require them to be submitted as separate performances (which they are not to the listener outside).

I asked on facebook (but got no answer) whether they had intended it to be true, because choosing a different calling front and back looks like an attempt to make it so. As a result all the leadheads were true. Unfortunately the callings were internally false to each other.

Graham

[John Harrison]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.64.15...@pascal.math.ubc.ca>,

Alexander Holroyd <hol...@math.ubc.ca> wrote:

> I simply don't understand the use of the phrase "unless redefined as
> some horrendously contrived Maximus method(s)"? To me there is nothing
> horrendously contrived about the concept "Cambridge Minor on the front
> and back sixes".

I agree ringing Minor + Minor is conceptually simple. Horrendously
contrived referred to trying to define the performance as being one or more
Maximus methods.

> Why is that a problem?

During the debate in Tim's working group there was some opposition to
allowing 6+6 with views being expressed that it should be defined as
Maximus. ISTR I was in a minority in saying it was OK.

> Actually I don't even see any reason why it contravenes existing rules.

I assumed there must be , otherwise people wouldn't have been objecting.

Regards

[Tim Barnes]

The current Decisions only allow Cinques and Maximus Methods to be used in peals on 12 bells.

So if the simultaneous C6 had been rung to a peal, it would have to be recorded as a new twin hunt Maximus method.  It might be entitled "Simultaneous Cambridge Minor Little Surprise Maximus".  (It would currently also be a Differential method since it's short course -- the subgroup proposal eliminated Differential for short course methods.)

With this approach, everything fits into existing composition and performance databases, and existing method classifications.

But I believe JAH would prefer a peal of Simultaneous Minor not to require the naming of a new Maximus method (with the same principle applying for Simultaneous Triples and Doubles, 3 X Minimus, etc).  Splicing more than one method in the same row would become a valid form of composition in JAH's view.

The differing views we had on this previously seemed to result from whether one prioritized machine readability or human readability.  'Simultaneous Cambridge S Minor' would make clear to many ringers what was rung (though only up to a point - e.g. if a call was used that swapped the bells in 6th's and 7th's places, things becomes murkier).  But introducing in-row splicing would require composition libraries, proving programs and similar to be reprogrammed.

GACJ pointed out that there are already a number of existing methods in the CC library where sets of adjacent bells only move within the range of places of each set.

I think all of us agreed that simultaneous ringing ought to be true at the combined stage, not just at each of the individual stages.

There are good arguments in either direction on this issue.  JAH's view did seem to be a minority one, although this question came up as we were closing in on the deadline to submit our document to MC, so I don't think we had a full debate.  Our doc didn't provide for simultaneous ringing, other than by naming a new method at the combined stage, as would be done today.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:29 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think all of us agreed that simultaneous ringing ought to be true

> at the combined stage, not just at each of the individual stages.

Really? I fear my memory must be failing me, 'cause I don't remember discussing that to the point of such an agreement.

My personal view (at least now; perhaps I expressed a different one then?) is that, while, in the unlikely event I were to be in a position to organize an attempt for such a thing, I'd probably want it to consist of 5,000+ distinct twelve bell rows, if a different band had a different idea of what they'd like to do, I certainly would not feel comfortable telling them that what they chose to do was wrong.

-- 

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

"The nature of the commitment to a law is very different from

that of commitment to a definition."

  -- Thomas Kuhn, _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:29 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JAH's view did seem to be a minority one

I'm sorry, I should have responded to this point, too.

While John may be in the minority, it's definitely a minority of at least two. I see this issue as equivalent to that of the CC redefining cyclic maximus link methods to be other than as the band that rang them thought they were when ringing them. If the band thinks they rang two chunks of minor laminated within the same row, it seems to be to be simply rude to tell them "No, you didn't, you rang a maximus method that never even imagined."

-- 

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

"Philosophy has not yet quite made up its mind that the external world

exists. Until it reconciles itself to the extreme probability thereof,

and faces the problems of life and death, the world will pass it by."

      -- Will and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Louis XIV_

[Alexander Holroyd]

At the risk of this spiralling into another huge acrimonious debate about
minutiae (which I don't want), let me try to point out some ways in which
my opinion is still radically different here.

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Tim Barnes wrote:

> The current Decisions only allow Cinques and Maximus Methods to be used
> in peals on 12 bells.
>
> So if the simultaneous C6 had been rung to a peal, it would have to be
> recorded as a new twin hunt Maximus method.  It might be entitled
> "Simultaneous Cambridge Minor Little Surprise Maximus".  (It would
> currently also be a Differential method since it's short course -- the
> subgroup proposal eliminated Differential for short course methods.)

The things that I see as potentially objectionable here are the "have to
be recorded" part and the requirement to name it in a particular way. I
think it is good that these options exist (and that name does not appear
unreasonable to me), but I think the band should be free to describe their
performance in any way they choose, with the understanding that a clear
appropriate description is to be preferred. Whether it is "counted"
should be independent of the choice of description.

> With this approach, everything fits into existing composition and
> performance databases, and existing method classifications.

But why does it need to?

> But introducing in-row splicing would require composition libraries,
> proving programs and similar to be reprogrammed.

No it wouldn't. People who want their programs to handle performances of
that type (and want them described in that way) are indeed "required" by
simple logic to write them that way. This is true regardless of any rules
about how performances are described in the Ringing World. Other than
that, I don't see why anyone should be "required" to do anything.

> GACJ pointed out that there are already a number of existing methods in
> the CC library where sets of adjacent bells only move within the range
> of places of each set.
>
> I think all of us agreed that simultaneous ringing ought to be true at
> the combined stage, not just at each of the individual stages.

No. Many of us do not agree that other people's ringing "ought" to be
anything. It can be helpful to have a notion of truth, and peronally I
don't think it is helpful for that notion to have special cases depending
on how often bells switch between different parts of the row. If you want
to describe that, give it a different name.

> There are good arguments in either direction on this issue.  JAH's view
> did seem to be a minority one, although this question came up as we were
> closing in on the deadline to submit our document to MC, so I don't
> think we had a full debate.  Our doc didn't provide for simultaneous
> ringing, other than by naming a new method at the combined stage, as
> would be done today.

Yes and no. I think that many of those on the "everything must be
categorized and described in a standard way" side of the debate imagine
that those of us on the more libertarian side are simply arguing for
slightly different rules of categorization. We are not - we just think
that this fundamental principle is mistaken.

Let's get some perspective. Suppose a tower captain said: "Tonight we are
going to ring Cambridge Minor simultaneously on the front and back sixes.
When I say "fob" it is a bob for the front six, and when I say "bok" it is
a bob for the back six." I think everyone reading this list would
immediately comprehend exactly what was meant, without the slightest risk
of ambiguity. (Eyebrows might be raised about the wisdom of the scheme,
but that's a separate issue).

But as soon as it becomes a written-up performance, common sense goes out
of the window, and this perfectly clear plain English description is
suddenly considered inadequate, immoral, or confusing. Instead we must
start earnest discussions about the current meaning of differential,
little, and truth, and if we make the wrong choices, the whole delicate
infrastructure of databases and proving software apparently may come
crashing down...

Meanwhile, the person who came up with the idea of simultaneous Cambridge
in the first place feels perhaps chastened that their "naughty method"
caused such trouble, and perhaps feels discouraged from coming up with
something else innovative and better...

Of course I am being a bit facetious here, and I don't want to blow it out
of proportion, but I do see this example as a microcosm of some of the
fundamental disgreements that still plague us.

cheers, Ander

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Alexander Holroyd <hol...@math.ubc.ca> wrote:

At the risk of this spiralling into another huge acrimonious debate about minutiae (which I don't want), let me try to point out some ways in which my opinion is still radically different here.

Sorry for the time to reply - not enough hours, etc.  I'd be interested in exploring this a little as I haven't yet fully understood your (Ander's) position.  I think we can do this in a non-acrimonious manner!

 

The things that I see as potentially objectionable here are the "have to be recorded" ... I think the band should be free to describe their performance in any way they choose, with the understanding that a clear appropriate description is to be preferred.  Whether it is "counted" should be independent of the choice of description ...  Many of us do not agree that other people's ringing "ought" to be anything.  It can be helpful to have a notion of truth ...  I think that many of those on the "everything must be categorized and described in a standard way" side of the debate imagine that those of us on the more libertarian side are simply arguing for slightly different rules of categorization.  We are not - we just think that this fundamental principle is mistaken ...  Of course I am being a bit facetious here, and I don't want to blow it out of proportion, but I do see this example as a microcosm of some of the fundamental disgreements that still plague us.

I can see you object to the concept of standard categorization and description, but I'm not clear why you object, and what you'd propose as an alternative.  

I'm in favor of standardization because it seems beneficial to the ringing community to have common terminology that lets us clearly communicate with each other what we've been ringing and composing, that lets performances be easily compared, and records and stats be easily compiled.  What do you see as the benefits of less standardization?  Are there significant constraints that standardization imposes that are not worth the benefits it provides?  Or is your objection more to the principle of method ringing and ringers being subject to any sort of rules?

On the alternative approach part, you say things like "the band should be free to describe their performance in any way they choose, with the understanding that a clear appropriate description is to be preferred", and "it can be helpful to have a notion of truth".  How is this implemented in practice in your view?  Is there any sort of authoritative document like today's Decisions, or do these perhaps become guidelines that give examples of different ways to describe things?  Or should there be no comparable document to the Decisions in your view?

I'm not being facetious here! - having a better understanding of the above would help me, at least, in understanding what you consider to be a fundamental disagreement.

Tim

[John Harrison]

Tim:

> I can see you object to the concept of standard categorization and

> description, but I'm not clear why you object,...

That surprises me - I would have thought the logic of what Ander said was
obvious, whether or not one agrees with it.

> I'm in favor of standardization because it seems beneficial to the
> ringing community to have common terminology that lets us clearly
> communicate with each other what we've been ringing and composing, that
> lets performances be easily compared, and records and stats be easily
> compiled.

I have no problem with any of that - all good stuff. I wonder whether we
have different views of what standardisation means.

Ander may have had some general case in mind but taking the specific
example of 6+6, Cambridge Surprise Major *is* an existing standard. I can
see no reason therefore why recording a performance as Cambridge rung
simultaneously on the front and back sixes of a twelve should be considered
non-standard. We don't have a problem with the front 11 ringing Stedman
and the back 1 ringing Rounds (though we give the latter the more grand
name of a cover).

I suspect the issue is not about 'standardisation' (having standard ways of
describing things) but about the desire for a unique way to describe
anything, which is more than standardisation. From that perspective 6+6 is
a problem because it could alternatively be described as a 12 bell
structure. I don't think that is a tenable objection, not least because it
fails the 'common sense test'.

Now consider - Tim's draft document allows multiple covers, for example
Grandsire Triples on the front 7 of a ten can be called Grandsire Triples
with 3 covers. Every row ends in 890. Suppose every row ends in 980.
Presumably the front 7 are still ringing Grandsire Triples. Now suppose
8-9 dodge, so handstrokes end 980 and backstrokes end 890. Have the front
7 stopped ringing Grandsire Triples and started ringing goodness knows what
Caters?

> What do you see as the benefits of less standardization? Are there
> significant constraints that standardization imposes that are not worth
> the benefits it provides?

I would re-phrase that by saying what benefit can be gained by going beyond
standard descriptions to enforce unique descriptions, and whether the
benefits of doing so (for example to those who produce software tools and
databases) justifies the inconvenience of making thongs that would
otherwise be simple to describe very complex to describe.

[Tim Barnes]

On Dec 22, 2015 05:56, "John Harrison" <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
> That surprises me - I would have thought the logic of what Ander said was
> obvious, whether or not one agrees with it.

I read Ander's note as him having a general objection to there being a standard descriptive framework that ringers have some sort of obligation to follow when reporting performances.

This is separate, I think, to the question of whether or not in-row splicing should be included in the descriptive framework -- it certainly could be, if that was the prevailing view.  But as has been pointed out, this would likely add a fair amount of complexity to the framework.

I'm not advocating there only being unique ways to describe things in the framework.  This was settled in my mind when we debated lead divisibility, 6th's place Morning Star, Magenta, spliced Erin and Bastow, etc.  It seems inevitable that some overlap will result from any descriptive framework that has a realistic chance of being adopted.  If we added in-row splicing into the framework, this wouldn't replace the ability to also name 6+6 ringing as a new layered Maximus method.

So my question to Ander was why he thinks it's not a good idea for us all to follow a common descriptive framework.  There may well be good reasons that I haven't considered.

> Now consider - Tim's draft document allows multiple covers, for example
> Grandsire Triples on the front 7 of a ten can be called Grandsire Triples
> with 3 covers.  Every row ends in 890.  Suppose every row ends in 980.
> Presumably the front 7 are still ringing Grandsire Triples.  Now suppose
> 8-9 dodge, so handstrokes end 980 and backstrokes end 890.  Have the front
> 7 stopped ringing Grandsire Triples and started ringing goodness knows what
> Caters?

Agree this might be viewed as a limitation of the framework - RAS pointed this example out previously.  The draft framework would say this is assessed for truth at stage 9, since the only fixed cover place is 10th's.  Under the framework, this could be reported as a (layered) caters method, or as triples with variable cover bells in 8th's and 9th's that are affected by (continuous) calls (I doubt any of us would like this approach).  Or, under the draft framework, you could describe it as a non-standard performance of Grandsire Triples, and disclose what made it non-standard (non-fixed bells in 8th's and 9th's that were not included when assessing truth).  Or the ringing community could decide that the framework should be extended to allow dodging cover bells to be excluded when determining truth, making your example a standard performance of Triples.

We know many questions come back to whether there should be a dividing line between what's counted and what isn't (or what is counted differently).  Ander seems to be suggesting something different - that we shouldn't necessarily operate within a standard descriptive framework, whatever that framework includes - and I'd be interested to hear more about his reasoning for this.

Tim

[John Harrison]

TJB:

> I read Ander's note as him having a general objection to there being a
> standard descriptive framework that ringers have some sort of obligation
> to follow when reporting performances.

Reading both of your words:

TJB: ... it would have to be recorded as a new twin hunt Maximus method.

AEH: I see as potentially objectionable here are the "have to

be recorded" part and the requirement to name it in a particular way.

> I'm not advocating there only being unique ways to describe things in
> the framework.

It sounded as if you were in your earlier message quoted above.

> This is separate, I think, to the question of whether or not in-row
> splicing should be included in the descriptive framework

It is separate, but in-row splicing (or as I would say stacking) is a
good test because when something that can so simply be described in
common sense terms cannot be so described by a logically derived
framework then there must be something wrong with the framework.

I think the issue comes down to a balance between orderliness and
completeness. There is a continuum but consider three points:

- A tight descriptive process can enforce a uniqueness and guarantee
orderliness, but the cost is that some things either be nondescribable or
their description would be cumbersome and contrived

- An extended descriptive process that permitted some non-uniqueness would
allow more things to be described more elegantly, but orderliness of use
could not be enforced within areas of overlap.

- An open descriptive process (ie one that allowed additions) should be
able to encompass anything in a reasonably elegant way, but orderliness in
the way it was extended could not be enforced.

If you trust no one to behave responsibly you opt for the first. If you do
trust people to behave responsibly you consider the others.

As has been said earlier, the people who like breaking rules tend not to do
so when the only rules are not oppressive, don't get in the way, and are
obviously there for everyone's benefit.

My gut reaction would be for option 2.5 of the three above, ie an open
system where innovators can propose extensions to the descriptive framework
but where the CC would be responsible for ensuring that whatever was added
was well thought out and 'bug free'. That should work as long as the CC
sees its goal as providing a service, which others would respect.

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I read Ander's note as him having a general objection to there being

> a standard descriptive framework that ringers have some sort of

> obligation to follow when reporting performances.

> 

> This is separate, I think, to the question of whether or not in-row

> splicing should be included in the descriptive framework -- it

> certainly could be, if that was the prevailing view. But as has been

> pointed out, this would likely add a fair amount of complexity to

> the framework.

> 

> I'm not advocating there only being unique ways to describe things

> in the framework. This was settled in my mind when we debated lead

> divisibility, 6th's place Morning Star, Magenta, spliced Erin and

> Bastow, etc. It seems inevitable that some overlap will result from

> any descriptive framework that has a realistic chance of being

> adopted. If we added in-row splicing into the framework, this

> wouldn't replace the ability to also name 6+6 ringing as a new

> layered Maximus method.

Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying, but it sure sounds to me as if you're saying "There shall be an officially blessed way of reporting things we ring, and folks must use it. When there are cases of sufficient interest [in this case laminating methods of lower states within a row of a higher stage] we'll ensure they are somehow covered in the officially blessed way, eventually."

If I'm reading this right, it is the status quo, and has been causing mischief for over half a century, mischief that is the whole reason we've entered into this exercise of crafting an alternative to the current decisions.

In the past we've had things that didn't fit the official taxonomy because, when viewed as those who rang them viewed them, they were false in the plain course. The CC insisted they pretend they'd rung something different, with bobs and plains interchanged, to make them fit the taxonomy. Most of us on this list have agreed that's completely bogus, and said such things should be allowed to be reported as the band that rang them believe they were. 

In this case of laminating things within a row you appear to be saying "well, if that what's folks want to do, we should discuss whether or not to allow them to so describe it" even if it is clearly the way th e band thought of it. But whether or not we allow *that* now, it still means the next time someone does something we haven't yet thought of, we're going to have to think about whether or not to allow them to record it the way they thought of it when they rang it.

If we adopt such a position we have  made no real progress at all, we've just rearranged the furniture and updated the upholstery. To progress we need to change the paradigm from a "we'll tell you have you have to report things" one to a "we'll record what folks do, and how they choose to describe it, adapting how *we* categorize them as necessary to reflect what it is they do and report."

When the recorders are imposing an obligation on those actually doing the ringing, something's backwards: the craftsmen are being bossed around by their tools.

-- 

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

"Beware of those who speak of the spiral of history; they

are preparing a boomerang. Keep a steel helmet handy."

      -- Ralph Ellison, _Invisible Man_

[Graham John]

The point is that we wanted the descriptive framework to encompass a way of describing method ringing which was not covered under the current decisions. Whether people follow that descriptive framework is up to them, but if it is seen as a good (consistent, logical, tidy) way of describing things, then people are likely to follow it. The removal of restrictions to methods such as four blows etc, opens up a vast array of possibilities. If we could come up with a sensible way of describing more complex cases - such as dodging pairs, stationary bells, stacked methods across different sets of bells with offset starts then it would be a significant step forward. Just looking at the simple case of Cambridge over Cambridge and saying how that can simply be described doesn't really help (and describing as simultaneous as the recent band did is, I think, a misleading term - which illustrates the need nicely).

Graham    

[Don Morrison]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 8:50 PM Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> The point is that we wanted the descriptive framework to encompass a

> way of describing method ringing which was not covered under the

> current decisions.

That may be all you wanted, but please don't use words that seem to imply that you are speaking for all of us in this. In my case, and I think I was explicit about this, I did NOT just want to make it a little broader. I wanted something that was not limited just to things that folks have already rung, or even that they have considered ringing. Far better to have something that accommodates advances and changes in taste. Something that is just a little broader is exactly the status quo; widening the decisions every time someone does something new is exactly what we have been doing for fifty years, it hasn't worked well, it is what has led to the clamor for change, and it does need to be changed.

Among the reasons why the status quo is A Bad Thing is that it does, in practice, limit what folks can ring. It is mere sophistry to say that it doesn't because folks can always ignore the rules--we have seen time and again that performances that lie outside the decisions are labeled with pejorative terms, that simply change from time to time, and are treated as second class performances; and that ringers who might be more adventurous avoid things that might not pass muster.

-- 

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

"Brains are built with a rule of thumb such as 'If you

experience the sensation of pain, stop whatever you are

doing and don't do it again.' It remains a matter for

interesting discussion why it has to be so damned painful."

      -- Richard Dawkins, _The Greatest Show on Earth_

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:39 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

TJB: ... it would have to be recorded as a new twin hunt Maximus method.

AEH: I see as potentially objectionable here are the "have to
be recorded" part and the requirement to name it in a particular way.

TJB: I'm not advocating there only being unique ways to describe things in

> the framework.

It sounded as if you were in your earlier message quoted above.

In my first quote above, I was intending to describe what is required under the current Decisions.

 

It is separate, but in-row splicing (or as I would say stacking) is a
good test because when something that can so simply be described in
common sense terms cannot be so described by a logically derived
framework then there must be something wrong with the framework.

Or, the problem is that something like C+C, which clearly can be easily described, is a special case among a much broader set of method stacking possibilities, with the latter being a lot more complex to incorporate into a framework (but by no means impossible).

My gut reaction would be for option 2.5 of the three above, ie an open
system where innovators can propose extensions to the descriptive framework
but where the CC would be responsible for ensuring that whatever was added
was well thought out and 'bug free'.  That should work as long as the CC
sees its goal as providing a service, which others would respect.

And this I believe I fully agree with(!)  I'd express things as follows: if you take as a starting point there being a distinction between things that are counted one way vs. things that are counted another way - i.e. standard vs. non-standard performances (and I know this is not a starting point that is accepted by all) - then by definition you have to describe what constitutes a standard performance.  Your descriptive framework could include more than one way of describing the same standard performance, as the subgroup draft does.  Conversely, non-standard performances by definition won't all be describable by the framework, so English language descriptions may be required when reporting non-standard performances, which is fine.  But when reporting a standard performance, the descriptive framework should be followed.  The Central Council should be responsive to the ringing community in two ways here: by efficiently updating the definition of a standard performance from time to time in response to innovation; and by expanding or modifying the descriptive framework to incorporate more and/or better ways of recording standard performances as and when these gain traction.

Ander made the comment "Whether it is 'counted' should be independent of the choice of description", and it's the case where something is 'counted' for which I'm questioning the benefit of not describing it using the standard framework.

Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

If we adopt such a position we have  made no real progress at all, we've just rearranged the furniture and updated the upholstery. To progress we need to change the paradigm from a "we'll tell you have you have to report things" one to a "we'll record what folks do, and how they choose to describe it, adapting how *we* categorize them as necessary to reflect what it is they do and report."

To me this is over-correcting the current situation.  The "describe it the way you thought about it" argument is a good one, but it only works up to a point.  Some people think about Bob Doubles as a circle of work, and about Stedman by the position of their foot.  I don't believe it would be an overall benefit if myriad ways of describing the same thing were to become common, with a loss of standardization of performance reporting.  Also, when two people in the same band think about the same performance in different ways, there is then the question of who decides how it's reported.

There are plenty of common examples today of people thinking about things differently from how they're reported, e.g.TD minor thought of as underworks and overworks, and Doubles Variations as base methods and calls.  As far as I know this isn't controversial.  Your example of the CC insisting that bobs and plains are interchanged is, in my view, an example of the CC failing to be suitably responsive to innovation in the ringing community, not that the premise of the Decisions is wrong.

I think this comes down to finding the right balance.  An appropriate framework should impose some restrictions on how things are described, for the benefit of standardization of reporting across the Exercise (there won't ever be uniqueness of reporting), but the framework should be a living document that is modified when there is a clear need.  Even if some new form of Decisions is passed by the CC, things will remain problematic if the responsiveness issue isn't resolved - the CC seeing its goal as providing a service, as JAH aptly puts it.

[John Harrison]

TJB:
> ... The "describe it the way you thought about it" argument is a good

> one, but it only works up to a point. Some people think about Bob
> Doubles as a circle of work, and about Stedman by the position of their
> foot.

That is not a valid analogy. Those are strategies for remembering the
content, not disagreements about the name.

> An appropriate framework should impose some restrictions on how things

> are described, ...

That language frightens the horses. I think you mean is that since a
descriptive mechanism (scheme of codification) describes a set range of
things in a set way, when using it you are limited in what you can describe
and how you describe it. But that statement is neutral about whether you
can use other descriptive mechanisms.

> ... for the benefit of standardization of reporting across the Exercise

That is why we need codification, and it is why (I believe) people will
conform when there is not a good reason to do otherwise.

[John Harrison]

GACJ:
> > ... we wanted the descriptive framework to encompass a way of

> > describing method ringing which was not covered under the current
> > decisions.

DFM:
> That may be all you wanted... I did NOT just want to make it a little
> broader.

Read the words: 'a way of describing method ringing which was not covered
under the current decisions' is pretty open ended, and something that I
think we all *are* agreed on. What we seem to have trouble over is what
sort of regime we need to cover things outside the current Decisions and we
are more likely to make progress if we can agree some components.

1 - At any one time the framework will contain a finite number of
descriptive mechanisms.

2 - There needs to be a process for adding new descriptive mechanisms.

We can then consider various options, either by way of hard constraint or
by recommended practice to be followed. For example

a - Should overlapping descriptive mechanisms be allowed? Traditionally
the answer was no but I suspect we have a consensus for yes, possibly with
some caveats about reasonableness/orderliness.

b - Who can add new descriptive mechanisms? Traditionally it was the
Methods Committee with a bias against and subject to a CC vote. I'm sure
the consensus is against that. Should ringers (composers/bands) be able to
propose new descriptive mechanisms? I think there has to be a consensus
for that if we are against the status quo, but we seem to be some way from
consensus about how such a privilege should be managed and/or regulated.

I don't think Don really wants chaos, I think he wants freedom, but is
fearful that any hint of restraint is the thin end of a totalitarian wedge
but the language used to express that fear frightens those who want to live
in an orderly community.

When I opted for option 2.5 I was recognising the legitimacy of new ways of
describing things but I was also recognising that when creating something
long lasting to be used by others a wise second opinion is valuable. Think
of the innovator as the author and the (new, more enlightened Methods
Committee) as the proof reader / publisher. They have an intelligent
dialogue that possibly leads to small modification, with the result still
representing the author's intention but doing so in a more intelligible and
coherent way.

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 6:57 AM John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> I don't think Don really wants chaos, I think he wants freedom, but

> is fearful that any hint of restraint is the thin end of a

> totalitarian wedge

I think it largely boils down to I fear the unknown a whole lot less than I fear that which has been shown over, and over, and over, not to work. I'd really rather at least try something different than just keep tidying up the margins of the pit we've been digging ourselves into for the last 60+ years.

What I keep hearing is that order requires changing the descriptive framework before a band is allowed to use the new stuff. That's completely backwards. If we do not want to stifle innovation there is no choice, we must allow use of the new stuff BEFORE it is codified. I do not see how this is possible if we require folks to report things using ONLY a pre-existing taxonomy of things, even if that taxonomy is broader than the one on the CC's books today.

--

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

"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find

out how far one can go." 

  -- T S Eliot, preface to _Transit of Venus: Poems by Harry Crosby_

[John Harrison]

DFM:

> What I keep hearing is that order requires changing the descriptive
> framework before a band is allowed to use the new stuff.

Really? From whom? The establishment maybe but if anyone in the group
thinks that it's been sotto voce,

> That's completely backwards.

Agreed

> ... we must allow use of the new stuff BEFORE it is codified.

Codified can mean different things.

This is where I think we ought to be heading:

1 - Performances can be reported using descriptions that fall outside of
what is included in the official descriptive framework at the time.

2 - Anyone who devises new types of methods will have thought about the
rationale underlying their structure. He/she will probably therefore have
a pretty good idea of how the structure could be extended to include them,
and will presumably use it to describe them in the report.

3 - The introduction of a new type of method is likely to be accompanied by
a published article explaining the rationale.

4 - The custodian of the official descriptive framework will have in its
terms of reference the responsibility to bring it up to date with new
developments in a timely way. This could be done by one of:

a - Add the new mechanism as described by its originator (assuming that it
is well thought out and no unforeseen consequences are anticipated).

b - Discuss with the originator any minor changes that might enable it to
better integrated and to avoid any adverse effects. If these are
reasonable and do not undermine the originators intent then he/she is
likely to agree.

c - As (b) but the discussion takes place before the performance. That
could happen in an atmosphere of trust where both the custodian and the
innovator both have the goal of contributing usefully to the ringing
community.

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:23 AM John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> Really?  From whom?  

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:16 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> An appropriate framework should impose some restrictions on how

> things are described, for the benefit of standardization of

> reporting across the Exercise (there won't ever be uniqueness of

> reporting), but the framework should be a living document that is

> modified when there is a clear need.

That sure sounds to me like "you don't get to use the description that would be allowed by the modified framework unless you can get it modified before you ring it, even if the band believes that modified version is a more accurate description of what they have done." That's the status quo.

-- 

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

"It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil."

        -- Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_

[Graham John]

I don't understand this obsession with limitations. We are not trying to limit anything. However, the whole new area of stacking methods, dodging and internal covering has been opened up as a direct consequence of the new descriptive framework removing limitations in the existing decisions. What is wrong with thinking about how best to describe such ringing. Forget about anyone else for a moment, if you were to compose a composition for a peal of spliced containing stacked methods of differing stages as the composition progresses, with perhaps some dodging pairs and covers, how would you document the composition and describe the performance when publishing it? 

I think we may be able to define a way of building rows* from multiple methods/elements, which could be sufficiently generic to describe *any* ringing that is made of Adjacent Changes, while allowing ringers multiple ways of breaking down and defining the constituent methods within that framework as suits their preference.  

Graham

*At the Stage at which truth is to be determined.    

[John Harrison]

> the whole new area of stacking methods, dodging and internal covering

>has been opened up ... thinking about how best to describe such ringing.

Indeed, and it is a potentially huge area of which 6+6 is but a tiny, and
rather simple subset. It raises lots of questions for ringers, composers
and classifiers, which we are unlikely to answer without considerable
further thought and analysis.

Whether it is worth doing that of course depends on whether ringers and
composers want to explore it. That is why I believe that the new regime
must be based on a structure and a process for extending it that will not
break when it meets the unexpected.

The reason I keep using the simple 6+6 example is that although it is a
tiny subset that avoids much of the complexity of the whole area its
intrinsic simplicity means it already has a 'common sense' description, and
that mustn't break the model either.

> ... a peal of spliced containing stacked methods of differing stages as

>the composition progresses, with perhaps some dodging pairs and covers,
>how would you document the composition and describe the performance when
> publishing it?

We don't yet know, because no one has yet worked out the best way to do it,
but we can predict some things:

The composition description will contain more information than the
performance description.

Both descriptions will contain more information than comparable ones with a
similar number of non-stacked methods.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

This is where I think we ought to be heading:

[followed by points 1-4]

 

I agree with John's approach.  We haven't spent a lot of time on this list talking about mechanisms for evolving updated Decisions over time, but it's an important part of the discussion.  At one point we had a clause in the draft that invited bands to submit proposals to the CC for how the framework could be amended to enable better descriptions of performances that can't be adequately reported under the then-current Decisions.  This was cut at some point - I think because it was felt that people would make proposals without needing a clause to cover this.  But perhaps we should revisit this, and perhaps the more important aspect is including terms of reference covering the custodian updating the framework in response to new ringing developments.  This would fit well into the "Related Central Council Roles" section of the draft (assuming the CC remains the custodian).

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

That sure sounds to me like "you don't get to use the description that would be allowed by the modified framework unless you can get it modified before you ring it, even if the band believes that modified version is a more accurate description of what they have done." That's the status quo.

What the stacked C6 discussion has usefully brought into focus is that there are two elements to the retroactive recognition question.  In the draft that was submitted to the MC, we included (as Q.6) language enabling retroactive recognition of performances that were previously non-standard that would become standard under the draft.  But to Don's point, there's a separate issue that ought to be covered whereby performances that can be (or were previously) recognized as standard, but only using a sub-optimal description (plain and bobbed leads interchanged, etc), may be (re-)recognized retroactively using a better description under an updated framework.  Assuming this second situation is added, and that both these types of retroactive recognition are included in all future updates to the Decisions, this would address the point of "you don't get to use the description that would be allowed by the modified framework unless you can get it modified before you ring it" (although Don may think the mechanism above is still too restrictive).

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

The reason I keep using the simple 6+6 example is that although it is a tiny subset that avoids much of the complexity of the whole area its intrinsic simplicity means it already has a 'common sense' description, and that mustn't break the model either.

Yes, that viewpoint is quite hard to argue with.

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

I think we may be able to define a way of building rows* from multiple methods/elements, which could be sufficiently generic to describe *any* ringing that is made of Adjacent Changes, while allowing ringers multiple ways of breaking down and defining the constituent methods within that framework as suits their preference.  

I think we may as well.  The question is then whether we should try and develop this into a draft proposal now, or whether this should be tackled as part of a future update, once an initial set of improvements has been made.  If the overarching goal is to get to any better place than we are with the current Decisions, I wonder if the inclusion of full, generic method-stacking handling now will detract from that goal.  One solution might be to cover simple scenarios now (like the simultaneous C6 QP that was rung), but leave full, generic handling for a later update.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:47 PM Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Assuming this second situation is added, and that both these types

> of retroactive recognition are included in all future updates to the

> Decisions, this would address the point of "you don't get to use the

> description that would be allowed by the modified framework unless

> you can get it modified before you ring it" (although Don may think

> the mechanism above is still too restrictive).

If I correctly understand what you're suggesting, you are correct that it still does not seem appropriate.

If I understand it correctly, had this scheme been in place (albeit without other relaxations of the decisions yet added) twenty years ago. what would have happened was that the method David Pipe's band included in a cyclic peal of spliced is they *still* would have been required to pretend they rang something else at that time, and would only have been allowed to recast it as it was really rung after they'd gotten the decisions amended, presumably a year or more later. Assuming whatever bunch of people got to approve or reject the amendment even did approve it, of course.

This is still not a satisfactory state of affairs. I really do believe David Pipe's band should have been able to submit their peal as rung, at the time it was rung. It was a seminal peal, the progenitor of some of the most popular, advanced twelve bell peals rung regularly today. Any attempted revamping of the decisions that would not allow this for future innovations is, I believe, a failure.

-- 

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

"He did very well at Prosperity, except that he couldn't make

a living out of it."           -- Sinclair Lewis, _Elmer Gantry_

[John Harrison]

TJB:

> We haven't spent a lot of time on this list talking about mechanisms for
> evolving updated Decisions over time, but it's an important part of the
> discussion.

There are two aspects. One is the process (who may propose, who may
approve, ...). The other is what one might call the ground rules embedded
in the framework, for example that classifications may overlap (and hence
alternative descriptions are possible) but that the freedom needs to be
used sensibly in order to provide reasonable coherence.

Implicit in that is the ethos of empowering consenting adults to cooperate
for their common benefit (rather than regulating badly behaved children).
That has to come over in the tone and language surrounding the whole
exercise ...

> ...This would fit well into the "Related Central Council Roles" section

Yes, but it mustn't be undermined by any of the technical detail.

> The question is then whether we should try and develop this into a draft
> proposal now, or whether this should be tackled as part of a future
> update, once an initial set of improvements has been made.

Although Tim said that in response to Graham's comment about truth of
performances with stacked methods I think it applies generally. My
thoughts (and they might or might not survive contact with the reality of
doing it) are:

- When defining constructs etc we should ensure that they wouldn't 'break'
with any foreseeable type of ringing. They should either be general enough
to encompass for other (envisaged) types of ringing or they should be
worded in ways that will not be applicable for types of ringing that they
would not encompass. For example, any concepts that wouldn't work for
methods that don't have leads should be defined in terms of leads (or to be
applicable to lead based methods) and should not be used to define any
attributes that would be expected to apply to methods that don't have
leads.

- Where a type of ringing is reasonably foreseeable but largely unexplored
we should aim to define the minimum necessary to provide the conceptual
hooks on which later detail can be added, and to do so in a way that does
not prematurely close off options.

Regards

[John Harrison]

DFM:
> If I understand it correctly, had this scheme been in place ... they

> *still* would have been required to pretend they rang something else at
> that time, and would only have been allowed to recast it as it was

> really rung after they'd gotten the decisions amended, ...

We know that the versions submitted in the autumn was rushed through with
some things not worked through and some things not having consensus. The
point surely is that we (all of us afia) are trying to achieve a solution
that would not force them to use artificial descriptions until they can
push through changes.

In my post a few days ago I suggested a way that would allow the new
description to be used in the performance report and a corresponding update
to the descriptive framework to follow. With cooperation, common sense and
goodwill it should be possible to do that if the ground rules are in place.

[Tim Barnes]

Agreed.  I would think new Decisions should provide for peals that were previously recognized under less than optimal descriptions to be restated in a better way - the subgroup draft didn't cover this.  But if and when the same situation arises in the future, the proposed new description should be used from the outset, and John's steps 1-4 followed to seek the corresponding update to the framework.  If, how and to what degree steps 1-4 should be included in new Decisions would need to be worked out.

Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:44 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

... My thoughts (and they might or might not survive contact with the reality of
doing it) are: ... 

- Where a type of ringing is reasonably foreseeable but largely unexplored
we should aim to define the minimum necessary to provide the conceptual
hooks on which later detail can be added, and to do so in a way that does
not prematurely close off options.

Sounds reasonable.  I should have some time available over the next week, so will have a go at adding language to the subgroup draft to provide at least a minimum framework for stacked methods, to see how big a change this involves.  At the same time, I'll have a go at incorporating JAH's points 1-4 on updating the Decisions over time, as well as providing for re-statement of previously recognized peals that had to be described at the time in a contrived manner.  It seems worth having draft content in one place, which can be reviewed and refined, even though the broader CC review process remains unclear.

I would imagine that stacked method performances such as the recent C6+C6 would be more likely to be rung to QPs than to peals (and there are some good arguments for ringing QPs such as these - people with limited 12-bell experience can get good 12-bell practice by ringing, say, the 5th or the 6th, and people needing focused practice at finding their way through 9-10 coming down from the back can ring, say, the 7th or the 8th).  Since the subgroup draft advocates a QP being sufficient to name a method, the question of whether a QP of C6+C6 has led to a new Maximus method could quickly arise if not addressed.

Tim

[John Harrison]

TJB:

> I would imagine that stacked method performances such as the recent C6+C6

> would be more likely to be rung to QPs than to peals ...

Under the current regime certainly because it would avoid fighting with the
Decisions. Under a new regime I could see both, with some bands using
(say) 6+6 as a training experience but other more experienced bands using
it to exploit musical possibilities (or just, as the mountaineer once said
'because it is there).

> ... a QP being sufficient to name a method, the question of whether a QP

> of C6+C6 has led to a new Maximus method could quickly arise if not
> addressed.

In our (certainly my) envisaged future the 'question of whether the
performance led to a new Maximus method' would depend on how the band
described it. at sounds a bit like old-speak. The 'question' that we need
to address is how to establish a regime where such things are possible
without undesirable side effects that adversely affect the ringing
community.