Some thoughts on the proposed decision changes

[Don Morrison]

I'm very pleased to see the wording of proposed changes. Thank you!

I think the proposed changes appear in two, different mail threads, one in one, and three in the other. And that's it. Please let me know if I've missed something.

Regarding the proposed rewrite to (D)B:

I'm very pleased to see the shortening and tightening up you've done here. In general outline, this is clearly a big improvement. Again, thank you!

I do have a few quibbles, though.

The terms "cover bell" and "effective stage" are relatively technical terms which have not been defined, and which sensible people might interpret differently than you intended. And similarly "uninterrupted" seems to be being used in some sort of technical sense which has not be defined, and which is not at all clear to me.

For example, if I ring on a twelve Stedman Doubles on the front six, with the six covering, and Cambridge Minor on the back six (suitably out of phase, probably with some unusual calls, to ensure truth as twelve bell rows) the six could very reasonably be argued to be a "cover bell". I personally have no problem with that, but wonder if that was really your intention?

"Effective stage" is a term rarely used in ringing outside of the decisions, and so I think really does deserve a definition somewhere. And consistent use. It is, I think, primarily of importance in clause 4:

I think your intentions in clause 4 appear to be excellent. This is a revoltingly difficult thing to get right, and I think, in outline, you may have done so; I'm going to think further on whether or not I can construct some nasty example that breaks it. However, the actual wording seems a bit short of what it needs to be. I think I really only follow it because I think (perhaps wrongly :-) that I know what you're trying to say. For example, shouldn't the sentence "a peal may include a single uninterrupted round block, at either the lower or higher stage for multi-stage peals, in which each of the possible rows at that stage appears at most one more time than every other possible row" refer to the effective stage? Or are you really saying that if I ring a peal of 5,140 doubles and minor, that includes a 100 of spliced doubles (maybe variable cover, maybe single cover) and minor I can't call it a peal?

And what does "uninterrupted" mean in this context. When I read "a peal may contain any number of uninterrupted extents or multi-extent blocks" the implication is that there may be interruptions between the blocks. So, my band can ring a 2,880 of minor, set their bells, go have their lunch, come back, ring a 2,160, and call the whole thing a peal. I'm sure that's not what was intended, but it's sure what "(un)interrupted" sounds like to me! :-)

"Round block" is also a technical term that is not defined. But I'm guessing you believe that best left to another day, the term having lived undefined in the decisions for a long time already, and, unlike "cover bell", being used outside (D)B. Fortunately I think "round block" is probably also less prone to mis-interpretation.

I think this is fairly tough sledding, and many voting on this at the Council meeting will not really have a good understanding of what the new (D)B means, particularly clause 4. It might be worth preparing a smorgasbord of examples of things formerly prohibited that are now allowed, and things still prohibited, together with a statement that you believe that nothing formerly allowed is now prohibited.

Clause 5 really doesn't belong here. (D)B is about what "is" a peal. What you have to report is a completely dfifferent animal, and should be collected elsewhere, I think. Perhaps in (D)E. That said, I understand it's Always Been Here, so perhaps now is not the time to fix that.

Anyway, I plan to reread this every day for a few days, and send further thoughts after I've digested it. It's not easy stuff.

Regarding the proposed deletion from  (E)A.2:

This really does seem to get the job done! And has the further virute of not leaving you wondering "have they defined 'true round block'?"

I am puzzled at the genesis of this clause. Why go to all the trouble of defining "change" in (E)A.1, and then not use it in (E)A.2, instead talking about the places made between rows? Oh, well, not a problem for this year, though I trust your long term solution will not suffer from such an oddity.

In reading this section carefully I am, however, prompted to ask a question: why do we believe that methods with one lead courses are prohibited? All it says is that they have to be decomposable into parts that are all the same length; it doesn't say "into two or more parts", and one is pretty clearly "equal length". (Suggestion for the long term: in this context I think "partition" is a better word than "decompose".)

Regarding the new (D)A.6:

This seems to be an attempt to be overly clever, and slay two fowl with one vote: getting rid of "bells must be audible from outside" is a distinct proposition from "allow peals on simulators". I think combining them is asking for trouble: I can readily imagine some Council members being happy with one but unhappy with the other. They should be decoupled, even if that does make phrasing things to get the numbering right painfully awkward.

Unless you explicitly define it so (which I strongly suggest not doing) a "simulated peal" is a very different animal than a "peal rung on a simulator".

"The simulated bells shall all be rung full circle-style by human ringers" would encompass, say, one human saying into a microphone "8,7,6,5,6,5,5,6,6,5,6,5,5,6,6,5,6,5,4,3..." and then six other bluelines, and one further human saying the last line, and then software using text to speech and showing pictures on a monitor of bells ringing full circle through a performance of Middleton's Cambridge. While I personally would have no problem with calling that a peal, I'm pretty certain I am in a small minority.

Do simulated tower bells have to have ropes? Do simulated handbell peals have to involve hands, or can I just say "up" and "down" and I've met the law? Or, perhaps just look "up" and "down"?

I'm sorry, this all seems a bit of a mess to me.

Regarding the changes to (D)A.9 and (D)A.10:

These seem to be strongly dependent upon how you interpret "possible", with either result being essentially meaningless. The fastest an error can be corrected is essentially right as it happens, which is a tighter constraint than the currrent one. Or you might interpret "as possible" to mean "within the capabilities of the conductor and band" which might well be two hours and five extents later. This is really an attempt to legislate judgement and taste. It might or might not be possible to do, but I don't think this gets the job done.

-- 

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

"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. Now I realize I should have

been more specific." -- Jane Wagner, _The Search for Signs of

                        Intelligent Life in the Universe_

[Mark Davies]

OK thanks for your thoughts Don, as ever they are really useful.

In detailed reply:

> The terms "cover bell" and "effective stage" are relatively technical
> terms which have not been defined

Yes, I am not too worried about "cover bell" since the existing
Decisions use it without definition, and I'm not proposing to improve
that. The old-fashioned meaning of a bell bonging behind is what is
meant. I think most readers would understand that.

"Effective stage" is a term I needed to describe the stage where truth
is assessed. I have defined what it means in a variable-cover round
block: "the higher stage is the effective stage", but I've left it to
common sense for the other cases.

However that probably isn't good enough. Another problem with my
treatment of effective stage is that, in the current Decisions, you have
to adopt the higher stage as the effective stage for all mixed-stage
peals above Minor and Triples; but read literally what I've drafted is
the opposite, that you always have to use the lower stage.

I think to apply consistency to all stages, what is needed is the
choice: you either treat a round block as effective at the higher stage,
or, if it's rung entirely at the lower stage with the tenor as cover,
you can treat the lower stage as the effective stage.

> And similarly "uninterrupted"
> seems to be being used in some sort of technical sense which has not be
> defined, and which is not at all clear to me.

Yes I agree this needs to be improved. What I meant by an "uninterrupted
round block" is a round block which isn't embedded in another one. But
on review I don't think this is any use anyway. Interpreted literally,
the truth stipulations I've drafted apply to *every* set of changes from
rounds->rounds in a peal.

So, I think you've convinced me I need a redraft of section 4. How about
this instead:

4. Truth. A true round block is a sequence of rows beginning and ending
in rounds where each of the possible rows at the effective stage appears
at most one more time than every other possible row. A true round block
is called "complete" if each of the possible rows at the effective stage
appears the same number of times, or "incomplete" otherwise. A peal is
true if it can be formed from any number of complete round blocks plus
at most one incomplete round block. The lower stage may be used as the
effective stage for round blocks with a cover bell which is always the
tenor; otherwise the higher stage is used.

This introduces more new terms (complete and incomplete round blocks)
but perhaps is preferable - votes?

> For example, shouldn't the sentence "a peal may include a single
> uninterrupted round block, at either the lower or higher stage for
> multi-stage peals, in which each of the possible rows at that stage
> appears at most one more time than every other possible row" refer to
> the effective stage?

Yes, correct, I'd missed out the word "effective" there. I've sorted in
the new wording above.

> It might be worth preparing a
> smorgasbord of examples of things formerly prohibited that are now
> allowed, and things still prohibited, together with a statement that you
> believe that nothing formerly allowed is now prohibited.

Good plan. For summary here, I believe the new things allowed are:

1. Peals on higher numbers are now treated the same as Triples and below.

(a) They can now contain additional small non-extent blocks, so you can
ring a 40544 of Major.
(b) When ringing mixed stages, you can ring whole extents of the lower
stage, without having to treat truth at the higher stage. In other
words, a peal of Triples and Major can include the entire extent of
Triples, and the Major doesn't have to worry about repeating these changes.

2. The "small additional non-extent blocks" have been further
generalised, to allow N/N+1 constructions, at all stages. So whereas the
2016 amendment allowed a 5082 of Triples to be rung with an extent
followed by a touch of 42 changes, you will now be able to ring a single
round block of 5082 changes, with 42 of them repeated anywhere within it.

The latter point is much more far-reaching than it may first appear, not
least because it allows a bobs-only peal of Grandsire at sensible length
(e.g. probably possible in those 5082 changes).

> Clause 5 really doesn't belong here. (D)B is about what "is" a peal.
> What you have to report is a completely dfifferent animal, and should be
> collected elsewhere, I think. Perhaps in (D)E. That said, I understand
> it's Always Been Here, so perhaps now is not the time to fix that.

Yes, and yes!

> Anyway, I plan to reread this every day for a few days, and send further
> thoughts after I've digested it. It's not easy stuff.

OK thanks Don.

Cheers
M

[Mark Davies]

Ah actually there is a simpler version of my latest D(B)4 which avoids
using "effective stage" altogether:

4. Truth. A true round block is a sequence of rows beginning and ending

in rounds where each of the possible rows appears at most one more time

than every other possible row. A true round block is called "complete"

if each of the possible rows appears the same number of times, or
"incomplete" otherwise. The set of possible rows may be taken from the
lower stage for round blocks with a cover bell which is always the
tenor, otherwise the highest stage is used. A peal is true if it can be

formed from any number of complete round blocks plus at most one
incomplete round block.

How's that?

MBD

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Mark Davies <ma...@snowtiger.net> wrote:

> 4. Truth. A true round block is a sequence of rows beginning and

> ending in rounds where each of the possible rows at the effective

> stage appears at most one more time than every other possible row. A

> true round block is called "complete" if each of the possible rows

> at the effective stage appears the same number of times, or

> "incomplete" otherwise. A peal is true if it can be formed from any

> number of complete round blocks plus at most one incomplete round

> block. The lower stage may be used as the effective stage for round

> blocks with a cover bell which is always the tenor; otherwise the

> higher stage is used.

> 

> This introduces more new terms (complete and incomplete round

> blocks) but perhaps is preferable - votes?

At first glance I think introducing complete and incomplete is a plus, not a minus, as it seems to both tidy things up and make intent clearer, or, at least, more succinct. However, this is all sufficiently complicated I'm going to need to spend a lot more time thinking about it.

One further observation: unless I'm missing something, combining the earlier proposal with your revised clause 4 (which only affects one of these points):

- a peal may be false (or, at least, not "true") -- no where does it say that truth is a requirement of peals, it just defines what it is

- and a peal may be of, say, Minor and Maximus -- no where does it say that the itemization in clauses 1 and 2 are the only possible collections of stages allowed

-- 

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

'The chief gift of nature, he said (never having starved),

is liberty.'            -- Will Durant, _The Renaissance_