Comments on Version 7

[Graham John]

Tim wrote:

1. Considering whether to broaden the definition of a peal (and other lengths) so that many of the 'standard performance' requirements currently in Section K would effectively move to Section P (Performance Reporting) where they would be disclosed if not followed – the 'norms' approach.

H. I think it is possibly OK to get rid of the term Standard from Performance, but do not think it is necessary to change the terminology from Performance to Block. The requirements then in Section II are just to do with the reporting of published performances. Essentially, if a performance is not published, we are not concerned about it. If it is then it is reasonable to expect that the report should state any deviation from the performance norms. A performance is just a piece of ringing intended as a performance (rather than a practice), whether public or not (solely for the participants).

To be pedantic, this section is a categorisation of Performance (Blocks) by length rather than Names given to them. 

H6. Long Length is inconsistent with the definition of the others in this list. Why does it need to be defined as a Peal rather than Block (or preferably Performance).

H7. I don't see why a date touch has to be rung in the year concerned, rather it is a performance where the length is chosen to commemorate a particular year (just usually the current year). 

H8. Somewhere along the line the requirement for reporting of Record Lengths only when they are above 10000 changes has been lost - but see my view on Long Lengths below.

I. These seem like further requirements for a published performance (now section L).  

L. These are the requirements of a published performance (not just Long Lengths), excepting that where any of these requirements are not met they have to be declared in the performance report. I wonder whether it is really necessary to have any special requirements for Record Lengths - remember the issue caused by the Cambridge Handbell ringers ringing the longest lengths without umpires or notice because they hadn't really thought that they were exceeding previous performances - as far as I am concerned they are still the record lengths for the methods. 

 

L8. How many performances are rung nowadays with handbell ringers ringing only one bell? Although this was previously only a requirement for record lengths, it would make sense to include it for all performances, as the performance report should state when this was not the case.

L9/10/11. Requirement, or polite request/recommendation?

M3. I think this change reintroduces the problem of 7 extents in single methods being described as spliced, as a peal of 7 extents can still be described as a Block.

2. Incorporating layered method ringing, such as a 12-bell performance rung using two Minor methods.

M4. I would also describe individual methods as layered if two or more groups of bells never intermingle throughout the plain course. 

There are 20 such methods in the CCCBR Library and 8 in the Provisional Library.

 

M5. Perhaps better to say "include the Composition with the Performance Report" otherwise the RW might consider it necessary to print it, rather than just have it attached on Bellboard.

Q6. Needs also to say "and any new Methods to be named and recorded in the CC collection according to the latest naming and classification". For example, "Bottom Block Maximus" is not in the current collections as Blocks were introduced in a decision after the peal was rung, and it is false in the plain course.

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAHe9+AcLpB_sNB6E7dL_p80GSF1tO=XCUDV0UCTYnPLO5u6=O...@mail.gmail.com>,

Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> H7. I don't see why a date touch has to be rung in the year concerned,
> rather it is a performance where the length is chosen to commemorate a
> particular year (just usually the current year).

Agreed. I've rung several back dated ones for anniversaries.

> L. These are the requirements of a published performance (not just Long
> Lengths), excepting that where any of these requirements are not met they
> have to be declared in the performance report. I wonder whether it is
> really necessary to have any special requirements for Record Lengths -
> remember the issue caused by the Cambridge Handbell ringers ringing the
> longest lengths without umpires or notice because they hadn't really
> thought that they were exceeding previous performances - as far as I am
> concerned they are still the record lengths for the methods.

There was discussion at the time. My view (and I think there was some
consensus) was that we should follow other sports where recognition of an
'official record' requires special verification and that any record where
the verification can't be provided is an 'unofficial record'.

If we adopted such a regime I assume verification would require a report
from and umpire(s). An open question is whether a performance that varied
from performance norms would become an official record, and if so which
norms would or would not be required. I think my view is that the official
status should relate the the verification, and that any variation from the
norm should merely be stated. So for example the longest length of Royal
might be X but the longest length with the same ringers ringing the same
bell throughout might be Y, and both are official records because they were
verified by umpires.

> L8. How many performances are rung nowadays with handbell ringers ringing
> only one bell?

Few if any. Two in hand is the norm.

> ... for all performances, as the performance report should state when

> this was not the case.

Of course it should, since two is the norm.

> L9/10/11. Requirement, or polite request/recommendation?

I would say requirement for a record to be recognised as 'official' (see
above).

> M3. I think this change reintroduces the problem of 7 extents in single
> methods being described as spliced, as a peal of 7 extents can still be
> described as a Block.

I assume that is the intention. If a peal of Major in two methods with 1
change of method is called spliced, why should a peal of Minor in 7 methods
with 6 changes of method not be called spliced? What should it be called?
Is there merit in introducing a new term for mixing methods where changes
of method only occur at a lead containing Rounds? I think not.

> M5. Perhaps better to say "include the Composition *with* the Performance
> Report" ...

Agreed, but also re M5: 'sufficient information is provided in the
Performance Report to enable the reader to understand what was rung' - That
ought to be a separate requirement, not just for layered methods. It would
also be relevant for example when non conventional (not yet codified)
methods or calls were used.

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

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> How many performances are rung nowadays with handbell ringers

> ringing only one bell? Although this was previously only a

> requirement for record lengths, it would make sense to include it

> for all performances, as the performance report should state when

> this was not the case.

On the contrary, there is no reason to say the performance report needs to call this out specially: it is obvious from the normal report. Just like it is obvious from the normal report whether or not a peal has been rung covered, or came round at the opposite stroke from which it started.

-- 

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

"Will the crimes of powerful men always be glorified?"

  -- Toussaint Louverture, letter to the Directory, 27 October 1797,

       tr. George Tyson

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> M4. I would also describe individual methods as layered if two or

> more groups of bells never intermingle throughout the plain course.

>

> There are 20 such methods in the CCCBR Library and 8 in the

> Provisional Library.

Am I correct in guessing that the bulk of these are methods were originally rung as links of various kinds? If so, it's intriguing how much the obession with properties of the plain course of methods never intended to be rung in that way wreaks havoc on taxonomic schemes. Are we perhaps doing something wrong?

-- 

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

"As every developed mind eventually realizes, self-education

is the only education which ultimately counts, beyond well-

definable preliminary stages."      -- Hans Keller _Criticism_

[Don Morrison]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:31 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> Is there merit in introducing a new term for mixing methods where

> changes of method only occur at a lead containing Rounds? I think

> not.

I don't think that formulation expresses what you mean. I think you mean the changes of method occur only at rounds itself, at the beginnings and endings of complete, true extents, which is a significantly tighter constraint; for example, in treble doding minor methods with the usual flow of in and out of course rows and so on, rounds occurs at the snap when you're out of course, so your formuation could de-splicity some things that are today clearly considered spliced. And things get even wilder if you ring variable hunt.

Intriguingly, several North American bands regularly do send up quarters or multiple methods in whole extents as "mixed". I've never understood why, though they apparently disagree and think a new term is appropriate.

-- 

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

"Sometimes I am, sometimes I think."   -- Paul Valéry

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFVGDK4sWeU8RbiJ_m+iSA30VVY9+cigARBkA9_i=ZJ...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> > How many performances are rung nowadays with handbell ringers

> > ringing only one bell? ... performance report should state when

> > this was not the case.

> ... it is obvious from the normal report.

Of course it is. Why didn't I think of that :-(

[Tim Barnes]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

H. I think it is possibly OK to get rid of the term Standard from Performance, but do not think it is necessary to change the terminology from Performance to Block. The requirements then in Section II are just to do with the reporting of published performances. Essentially, if a performance is not published, we are not concerned about it. If it is then it is reasonable to expect that the report should state any deviation from the performance norms. A performance is just a piece of ringing intended as a performance (rather than a practice), whether public or not (solely for the participants).

To be pedantic, this section is a categorisation of Performance (Blocks) by length rather than Names given to them.

I agree that using the term "public" in the definition of performance isn't right.  It may be best to delete I.1.1 entirely, and define Performance just as I.1.2 and I.1.3.  This is what I've done in the latest version attached (and this is now Section H.1 because of other changes below).

I've gone back and forth on whether the various length-related terms (QPs, peals, etc) are types of Blocks of types of Performances.  For a peal, it seems right to say "a peal is a performance whose length is 5,000 or more changes".  But to say "a touch is a performance whose length is 2 or more changes" seems less accurate, because touches are often practiced and not performed.  

On balance I think it's better to define the various lengths as performances, so I've now made Section H "Performances" to define what a performance is, and Section I "Performance Types" to define QPs, peals, etc.  When ringing a touch at a practice, it can be understood that one is ringing a "touch-length".

 

H6. Long Length is inconsistent with the definition of the others in this list. Why does it need to be defined as a Peal rather than Block (or preferably Performance).

The reason previously for defining Long Length in terms of Peal was to highlight the intentional overlap of terms.  Record Length is defined in terms of Long Length for the same reason.  However now that I've added Touch, other terms overlap.  I think we either need to define everything in Section I in terms of Performance, or else define Short Touch, Quarter Peal, Half Peal, Peal and Date Touch in terms of Touch (and leave Long Length and Record Length as they are).  Is there a preference as to which is better?  For now I've gone with the latter.  

H7. I don't see why a date touch has to be rung in the year concerned, rather it is a performance where the length is chosen to commemorate a particular year (just usually the current year). 

I don't feel strongly either way on this.  I noted that BellBoard only counts date touches as performances where the length matches the year in which rung.  (BB doesn't have a check box for a submitter to identify a date touch, so it would be difficult at present for BB to use a broader definition.)  But also, if a date touch can be any year being commemorated, doesn't that imply there should be other categories such as "age touch" (e.g. 5060 for someone's 60th birthday?)  A date touch seems more strongly anchored than that, with a tradition of composers coming up with new compositions that correspond with each new year that rolls around, and bands seeking to ring these compositions before the year ends.

H8. Somewhere along the line the requirement for reporting of Record Lengths only when they are above 10000 changes has been lost - but see my view on Long Lengths below.

The 10,000+ requirement is is covered by defining Record Length in terms of Long Length.

I. These seem like further requirements for a published performance (now section L).  

But shouldn't Performance itself be a defined term, and hence part of the descriptive framework section?  (But I agree the single person performance umpire point needs to move to the requirements section, which I've done.)

 

L. These are the requirements of a published performance (not just Long Lengths), excepting that where any of these requirements are not met they have to be declared in the performance report.

It seems a little inconsistent to say, for example, that there's a requirement for a (non-record length) performance to be a true round block, but then later to say that a report of a performance notes when the performance wasn't true and/or round block.  I don't think true round block and similar can be both a requirement for a performance, and also not required if disclosed.  To relate these terms to non-record performances, I think we'd need to say something like "normally used", whereas for record lengths they are required.  And a "normally used" clause seems a little redundant because M.2 covers this.  (This gets to the bigger question of whether it's preferable overall to drop the concept of a standard performance.)

I wonder whether it is really necessary to have any special requirements for Record Lengths - remember the issue caused by the Cambridge Handbell ringers ringing the longest lengths without umpires or notice because they hadn't really thought that they were exceeding previous performances - as far as I am concerned they are still the record lengths for the methods. 

Possibly, but I think this is a big change to tradition.  Record Lengths have had special requirements and a special place in ringing for a long time.  I view those Cambridge handbell peals as long lengths but not record lengths.

I'm still thinking about JAH's comment about whether a record length performance that doesn't follow the norms can / should be counted as a record.

L8. How many performances are rung nowadays with handbell ringers ringing only one bell? Although this was previously only a requirement for record lengths, it would make sense to include it for all performances, as the performance report should state when this was not the case.

Aside from whether 2 in hand should be a requirement (or norm), this would give the same issue as above - can't be a requirement and also not required.

L9/10/11. Requirement, or polite request/recommendation?

I think this is a requirement, unless we're looking to redefine what a record length performance involves (ref: comment above).

 

M3. I think this change reintroduces the problem of 7 extents in single methods being described as spliced, as a peal of 7 extents can still be described as a Block.

You're right it does.  I changed to just Block because I was trying to make M.3 and M.4 consistent.  

But I've realized that even True Round Block in M.3 doesn't work (in reflecting current practice) because a peal of 7 extents in 7 different methods can also be described as a single true round block.

I've therefore updated M.3 to say, "Performances comprising more than one Method are described as Spliced, unless changes of Method only occur at the end of a True Round Block.  Does this work?

But my preference here follows JAH's comment that if Cambridge and Yorkshire Major with a single change of method half way constitutes spliced, why shouldn't 7 minor.  A difficulty in all of this is trying to decide which traditions should be kept and which should be updated.

2. Incorporating layered method ringing, such as a 12-bell performance rung using two Minor methods.

M4. I would also describe individual methods as layered if two or more groups of bells never intermingle throughout the plain course. 

There are 20 such methods in the CCCBR Library and 8 in the Provisional Library.

Agreed, but are you suggesting this should be part of Section G on Method Classification, or a more informal term that goes into something like the ringing glossary?  I would think the latter.  If Charm Differential Little Hybrid Maximus is rung as a single method peal, I don't think we would apply the term "layered" to this performance.

M5. Perhaps better to say "include the Composition with the Performance Report" otherwise the RW might consider it necessary to print it, rather than just have it attached on Bellboard.

The slight problem is that this would be inconsistent with M.8, which considers the composition to be part of a performance report in some cases.  But P.1 gives the RW discretion to abbreviate performance requirements where necessary, which was intended to be the clause that prevents the RW from having to print compositions that are submitted.

 

Q6. Needs also to say "and any new Methods to be named and recorded in the CC collection according to the latest naming and classification". For example, "Bottom Block Maximus" is not in the current collections as Blocks were introduced in a decision after the peal was rung, and it is false in the plain course.

Good catch.  I've added Q.7 to cover this.

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Possibly, but I think this is a big change to tradition. Record

> Lengths have had special requirements and a special place in ringing

> for a long time.

I think a lot of the rallying around "tradition" mistakenly assumes it is more fixed than it is. When the majority of the current members of the Council were born, it still decreed that

- you were allowed at most two different kinds of calls in a peal

- big bobs and big singles were not allowed

- peals of minimus were not allowed (though in 1961 you started being allowed to, even in hand, which latter you stopped being allowed to do by 1968)

- you were not allowed to ring Plain Bob Triples, Caters or Cinques (despite what was done in Norwich 302 years ago, which I would have thought was the ultimate tradition to honor)

- you weren't allowed to ring Grandsire, or Reverse Canterbury, at even stages

- you couldn't ring Erin Doubles in a peal

- you couldn't ring Price's 240 in a peal of Grandsire Doubles

- peals of uncovered triples, caters and cinques were not allowed

- peals of covered minor, major and maximus were not allowed

- you couldn't ring multi-extent blocks that interchanged rows between the extents

- you couldn't ring half-lead spliced, albeit stuff like Ilkeston was something else, it appears

- peals of treble dodging methods with singles were not allowed, if you could still get a peal length without them

- you couldn't ring three lead course royal methods

- there was no official algorithm defining legal extensions

- record length peals were 6,720 or longer, not 10,000 or longer

- only seven days notice was required for record lengths

- for record length peals you had to pre-submit the composition intended to be used

- and on, and on, and on.

So, yes, there have been rules, including special ones for record lengths, for a while, but they do change, and are not divinely ordained. And there have in the past been attempts to remove the special ones. For example, a motion was made in 1970 by someone that went on to be a long time Records Committee Chairman, and also served as Council President, that all the special rules for long lengths be abolished; sadly for those who have had to sit through further pointless debates at Council meetings that motion failed.

And like so many of our "traditions" the special rules about record lengths are not that old, but rather are an invention of the council, which rather likes to create new traditions, even when people were doing things contrary to them long before the council was born.

Anytime the best argument that can be made involves the word "tradition" I think we should be skeptical of its validity.

-- 

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

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all

classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead."

      -- G K Chesterton, _Orthodoxy_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEdSpXnZBVH-s4+tHAZL...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've gone back and forth on whether the various length-related terms
> (QPs, peals, etc) are types of Blocks of types of Performances.

I would say that a block could exist on paper but a performance is when
ringers translate the block into a sequence of sounds by ringing it.

The tricky distinction is between a performance that is noteworthy enough
to be published and all other less significant instances where ringers
create sound sequences by ringing (aka performing).

In terms of intent, and by analogy with other music, a practice is not a
'performance'. But ringing a touch to welcome the congregation to a
service (or the audience to a concert in a building with bells) clearly is
a performance in the sense that other musicians would use it.

> it seems right to say "a peal is a performance whose length is
> 5,000 or more changes".

Agreed

> But to say "a touch is a performance whose length is 2 or more changes"
> seems less accurate,

I think the gut reaction comes with as much from the mathematically logical
'2 or more'. I think it is completely natural that many bands rang (and
published) touches of 300 changes to mark the tercentenary of Stedman's
death.

> because touches are often practiced and not performed.

They are also performed (in the common musical sense) for services, but
never published.

> On balance I think it's better to define the various lengths as
> performances,

Agreed

> When ringing a touch at a practice, it can be understood that one is
> ringing a "touch-length".

Why introduce more terms? Why not just refer to 'practising a touch' as
opposed to 'performing a touch'? (A choir would practise an anthem before
it performed it.)

> > H6. Long Length ...

By definition long lengths are a subset of peals, but it would be tidier
and more consistent to define it as a touch.

> ... defining Long Length in terms of Peal was to highlight the

> intentional overlap of terms. Record Length is defined in terms of Long
> Length for the same reason.

A record length might not be a Long Length. Consider a fiendishly false
Major method where the longest known touch is (say) 6400. If someone
discovers and rings a 7200 that would be a record length but it would be
less than 10,000.

> we either need to define everything in Section I in terms of

> Performance, or else ... in terms of Touch

I would go for touch

> (and leave Long Length and Record Length as they are).

I think they should also be in terms of touch

> BellBoard only counts date touches as performances where the length
> matches the year in which rung.

Obviously algorithmic, and it serves a useful purpose by categorising the
vast majority of them. (non-human) decoding of the footnote of a date
touch that commemorates a different year would be very hard.

> (BB doesn't have a check box for a submitter to identify a date touch,

A case for one could be made, and if it were, we would not want this
descriptive framework to break, so it should use the broader definition.

> should be other categories such as "age touch" (e.g. 5060 for someone's
> 60th birthday?)

Another interesting question, but although the use of such lengths is
established, I am not aware of an established name that could be included
in the definitions.

[John Harrison]

DFM:

> I think a lot of the rallying around "tradition" mistakenly assumes it is

> more fixed than it is. ...

We know that things have changed (both getting tighter and getting more
relaxed). That is almost inevitable in a prescriptive environment because
people will continue to contest where the lines are drawn.

The hope is that we can get away from 'what was allowed when', and that
future ringers will look at 'what ringers chose to ring when'.

But the one thing we seem to share with our predecessors is a desire to
record things and then to look back at records over time. We want to avoid
the 'year zero fallacy', so we need a measure of backwards compatibility.

[Don Morrison]

​​> ... defining Long Length​​

On further reflection, I wonder whether we really should be defining "long length" at all. Unlike "peal", which has a fairly long history (even if the word was previously used for other things, too), and has an almost natural origin, "long length" is a purely artificial construct, and has varied significantly in (many of) our own lifetimes: an 8,000 today is not a long length, but according to the Council's rules in the early 1960s it was. It seems a thing much less given to fixed definition than many other things we are defining. Saying a peal is 5,000 or more rows is a bit like carving a birth year onto a tombstone intended for future use, while defining a long length is a bit more like carving a phone number, which might change, onto it.

I think this may be a symptom of something that is afflicting this effort more generally. I believe we should be defining as few things as possible, just those we believe there is a compelling need to have defined be able to keep accurate records. Instead we seem to be defining things just because we've thought we could; perhaps we should go back and sanitize the effort of any superfluous definitions. "Long length" seems a natural choice to excise: while the exercise routinely records peals, and routinely keeps track of record lengths, it does not, so far as I know, keep any separate records of long lengths, nor need it do so: they are naturally extracted from the records of all peals. Individuals may keep separate long length records, but the exercise as a whole does not, so far as I know. And we are clearly not in the business of defining things individuals may or may not keep track of: far more people keep track of surprise major alphabets, towers circled, and days of the year rung on than of long lengths, and we're not doing anything special to support those more common personal records.

-- 

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

"It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or

doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof."

      -- Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFUb0YdG6ZWgVDmhs70Q...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> I wonder whether we really should be defining "long length" at all.

I don't think so. The only reference to Long length other than its
definition is in the definition of Record length, which as I pointed out
earlier isn't necessarily true.

[Tim Barnes]

On Apr 18, 2016 17:38, "Don Morrison" <d...@ringing.org> wrote:
> ... So, yes, there have been rules, including special ones for record lengths, for a while, but they do change, and are not divinely ordained. And there have in the past been attempts to remove the special ones. For example, a motion was made in 1970 by someone that went on to be a long time Records Committee Chairman, and also served as Council President, that all the special rules for long lengths be abolished; sadly for those who have had to sit through further pointless debates at Council meetings that motion failed.

Yes the rules have changed frequently over time.  I take as a starting point that there's a minimal set of definitions and rules, set by a central body, that optimizes the activity of ringing.  I think the same of chess, football and numerous other team-based pastimes that have a competitive element.  So I view the changes to the Decisions over time as being the CC (a democratic body subject to all the political maneuvering one would expect) trying to find the optimal set of rules (albeit using a process that has been decidedly sub-optimal).

And yes, nothing is divinely ordained -- we should question the purpose, necessity and net benefit of all rules.  In the case of the record length provisions, I support keeping these as I view them as a core element of method ringing, one for which records go back some 275 years.  In the case of peals of 7 method minor, I would be in favor of describing these as spliced for consistency with higher stages.  Someone else may well have the opposite view, and the only way ultimately to resolve this is for the central body to vote.

Given that our ultimate goal is to get an improved set of Decisions passed by the CC, the fact (which I didn't know) that a motion to remove the record length provisions previously failed (albeit some time ago) would seem to suggest they are important to the majority.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take as a starting point that there's a minimal set of definitions

> and rules, set by a central body, that optimizes the activity of

> ringing. I think the same of chess, football and numerous other

> team-based pastimes that have a competitive element. So I view the

> changes to the Decisions over time as being the CC (a democratic

> body subject to all the political maneuvering one would expect)

> trying to find the optimal set of rules (albeit using a process that

> has been decidedly sub-optimal).

Wow. That is completely different from what I thought we'd agreed we were doing, which was crafting a set of definitions (not rules) to allow folks to consistently record what ringers have done, a descriptive activity. What you have just described is the classic prescriptive view, making rules folks must follow: this is the root problem with what the council has been doing since the beginning of the last century, the source of our continuing woes, and the thing the whole fix-it activity was supposed to remedy.

-- 

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

"If poets of a certain kind drank all the wine and loved all the women

they versify, they would not have any time for their poetry."

         -- Christopher B Krebs, _A Most Dangerous Book_

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

Wow. That is completely different from what I thought we'd agreed we were doing, which was crafting a set of definitions (not rules) to allow folks to consistently record what ringers have done, a descriptive activity.  What you have just described is the classic prescriptive view, making rules folks must follow: this is the root problem with what the council has been doing since the beginning of the last century, the source of our continuing woes, and the thing the whole fix-it activity was supposed to remedy.

No, I don't think that's what we've been doing.  The document has a section called Descriptive Framework - this has the definitions.  The document also has a section called Requirements.  These are the rules.  In all the versions through 6.6, there were rules for ringing peals, etc.  7.1 moves some of these to disclosures but other rules remain.

I don't agree (and never have) that having any prescription is the root problem.  The problem is having the wrong prescription.  This was also outlined in the companion document - see 2. A (b) and 2. A (f).

But also, we've never had a full debate on this point on this list, so perhaps now is the time!

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:21 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Why introduce more terms?  Why not just refer to 'practising a touch' as
opposed to 'performing a touch'?  (A choir would practise an anthem before
it performed it.)

Agree that "practising a touch" is clear.  "Performing a touch" has the problem that if "touch" itself is defined as a type of performance (which it is in v7.1), this resolves to "performing a performance".  But I don't have a better suggestion.

A record length might not be a Long Length.  Consider a fiendishly false
Major method where the longest known touch is (say) 6400.  If someone
discovers and rings a 7200 that would be a record length but it would be
less than 10,000.

This is something I had overlooked.  On re-reading (D)D of the current Decisions, it does indeed appear that Record Lengths can be less than 10,000 changes (but must still be peals).  And if they are less than 10,000 changes, they can be records without the need for umpires, 14 days' notice in the RW, etc.  

I'd previously read the second paragraph of (D)D as meaning all record lengths have to be at least 10,000 changes, which I'd thought was a sensible minimum.  Are there any views on whether revised Decisions should keep the existing approach, or move to using a 10,000 minimum in all cases (or something else!)

A case for one could be made, and if it were, we would not want this
descriptive framework to break, so it should use the broader definition.

 Ok, I will use the broader definition of "date touch" if that's the consensus.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

​On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are there any views on whether revised Decisions should keep the

> existing approach, or move to using a 10,000 minimum in all cases

> (or something else!)

Well, I'd be in favor of viewing it as the longest peal anyone has rung of a method, with no further rules or whatever, but not even bother to define it explicitly. I fear I am probably in the minority, however.

​​

-- 

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

"Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't

see where it keeps its brain."

    -- J. K. Rowling _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_

[John Harrison]

DFM:

> > I thought we'd agreed we were ... crafting a set of definitions (not

> > rules) to allow folks to consistently record what ringers have done, a

> > descriptive activity. What you have just described is ... making
> > rules folks must follow ...

> No,... The document has a section called Descriptive Framework
> ...[and]... a section called Requirements. These are the rules.

Requirements are 'rules' about what is required for certain things, but I
thought our goal was to remove from the requirements section anything about
'what' is rung and limit it to 'how' it is reported or 'how' names are
allocated or 'how records are recognised'.

Looking at the current section 2:

L - Record length performances - As stated earlier I think these would be
better framed as requirements for a record length to be an official record.
That would avoid the anomaly of what to do with a performance that was
longer than the current official record but didn't meet some of the
requirements.

The requirements themselves are either about verification (legitimate for
official records) or they state that performances falling short of norms
will not be recognised as official. This is 'old think', which the ringing
community might accept for official records, but I wonder whether even here
there is not a need for a bit of 'new think'.

For example, was the 40320 rung in the 1780s really not a record? It was
the longest peal rung by a good margin, and it definitely took place. The
1963 peal clearly was a bigger achievement, being rung by 8 ringers, but
does that make the previous one not a record?

M - Performance reporting - This does what it says on the tin - to ensure
orderly and reliable communication about ringing performancdes. [No
comment here about whether the clauses are optimal or could be simplified.]

N - Method naming - Requirements to ensure the orderly use of names across
the community. However, N5 would be better worded as '... should not
conflict with anything in O'

O - Method extension - I think this needs a bit of re-work.

O.1 is a service provided by the CC so ought to be in Q.

O.2,3,4 are extensions of N, ie about the orderly use of names, though 'are
encouraged' is hardly a 'rule'.

> I don't agree (and never have) that having any prescription is the root
> problem. The problem is having the wrong prescription.

No, the problem is having prescription for the wrong things. Rules for how
to behave help make things orderly. Rules for what may be rung should be
avoided. Naming is a grey area, where a priori there should be no rules,
but when names exist and are being shared there is an obligation to use
them cooperatively.

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFUDxNqOwFScjq8EbQfq0J=TGGbW=Aj9xCB06U+8-co=4...@mail.gmail.com>,

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

> I'd be in favor of viewing it as the longest peal anyone has rung of a
> method, with no further rules or whatever,

Does what it says on the tin. A record is a record.

[Derek Williams]

R.3 still remains highly prescriptive. It is labelled ' Peals of Doubles, Minor etc'. For consistency should this be 'Performances of Doubles, Minor etc'? Surely the exception, even as it stands, is meant to apply to quarters, half peals etc.

A more liberal rubric that is comparable with what we have come up with in the rest of the document might be 'Performances of doubles or minor are considered true when each block in the touch is true. Blocks containing integer multiples of rows are considered true.' The reporting requirements will reveal whether the current standards are met. If not, people can make their own judgement about whether what is rung is acceptable to them.

Derek

[Don Morrison]

Am I reading R.3 correctly (both the current formulation, and the suggested modified one) as stating that if you ring a round block at a single stage it could be a bunch of extents plus a fractional extent (e.g. a 5100 of minor) it's kosher, but when you need to invoke R.2 (e.g. a 5100 of doubles and minor) it's treif? If so, this is, I think, problematic.

-- 

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

“When your children are teenagers, it’s important to have

a dog so that someone in the house is happy to see you.”

         -- Nora Ephron, _I Feel Bad About My Neck_

[Don Morrison]

A general, troubled comment.

Having come back to this now after such a long lapse, and having to pretty much start from scratch to understand things in it, and how they relate, I am struck by the length and complexity of it. I've not made an objective comparison, but it *feels* longer, and far more complex, than the council's current rules on such matters apart from extension.  Perhaps not longer in words, but longer in the thought that needs to go into understanding it, and reconciling its various parts to one another. I'm pretty sure an average ringer attempting to grok it will throw up his or her hands and decide it's beyond himm or her. Much like my own reaction every time I try to understand the current rules on extension.

This, I think, is a problem. I applaud it being more liberal than the current rules, but am troubled at it being no more accessible. I fear having to book the servicees of ringing attorney every time I submit a peal that's not Middleton's Cambridge. I really do think we've gone off the rails here. Is anyone else troubled by this, or am I alone?

-- 

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

"A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read."

                                                      -- Mark Twain

[John Harrison]

DFM:

> ... it *feels* longer, and far more complex, than the council's
> current rules ...

It has a higher word count than the relevant sections of the current
Decisions (~5900 v ~4600). So we could ask:

1 - Is it more comprehensive? - Yes, because it rigorously defines
everything whereas the current Decisions are less rigorous, and also
because it covers things that the current Decisions simply rule out.

2 - Is it clearer? - That should be asked relative to the more
comprehensive scope. Bear in mind that clarity over all includes not just
whether what it says is understood but whether there are things where it
leaves you in the dark.

3 - Could it be made simpler? - Probably yes, and when we have got it to
being 'correct' there would be merit in going through it looking for
opportunities to simplify it and streamline the wording. Bear in mind that
Tim stopped editing when no one objected that something was wrong. We
haven't spent a lot of effort on things that were 'right' to try to
simplify them, other than incidentally.

4 - Could it be made more accessible? - Some improvement may come from the
above, but accessibility could perhaps be enhanced by the addition of some
guidance or road map.

The last point is relevant to Don's comment about the average ringer. It
is unreasonable to expect an average ringer, without a background in
logical specification, to come cold to a rigorous document like this for a
quick explanation of how things work. There is probably a need for
something at a similar level to my Ringing World articles as well as the
definitive specification.

> This, I think, is a problem.

It is. Politicians face the same problem. People want simple solutions.
But the solutions aren't simple and politicians who pretend that there are
usually end up failing to find better good solutions because they end up
with an over simple solution bodged to try to make it work

> I applaud it being more liberal than the current rules

That was our primary goal.

> but am troubled at it being no more accessible.

Agreed its worth effort to make it more so.

> I fear having to book the servicees of ringing attorney every time I
> submit a peal that's not Middleton's Cambridge.

(a) There should be no need for an attorney since under the new regime
there are no laws to break.

(b) If you can devise something complex enough to require anything other
than the normal declaration, you almost certainly have the skills to access
the document.

[Tim Barnes]

Reading the recent posts, I wonder overall whether we should consider developing two or three different versions of our document that each align with the various different visions among us on what a future Decisions document should look like.  I think we're reaching the point where to finalize a single document would require a voting process to gauge majority opinion.  I'm not sure this group is big enough for voting results to be representative (though I'd be happy to try a voting process if people think this would be worthwhile), so perhaps producing two or three different flavours of possible future Decisions might be the more useful input to provide to a future MC.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 6:06 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Requirements are 'rules' about what is required for certain things, but I
thought our goal was to remove from the requirements section anything about
'what' is rung and limit it to 'how' it is reported or 'how' names are
allocated or 'how records are recognised'.

But "'how' it is reported" still seems controversial to some because it involves determining whether terms like "peal" apply to what was rung.

I often wonder what is actually meant when people say "there should only be definitions, not rules", because definitions are often rules written in a different way:

In the current document, the definition of peal includes ". . . whose Length is 5,000 or more Changes".

We might alternatively define a peal  as ". . . whose Length is 5,000 or more Changes and which is rung without interval".

The only difference between these two definitions is that one involves meeting two criteria (i.e. requirements or rules), whereas the other involves meeting one.  I think both of these criteria would have to go if you really wanted to have no rules, otherwise you're just moving goal posts.  I therefore wonder what a document that claims to have only definitions, not rules, would actually look like.  Attempting to put such a document together, as one of the different versions suggested above, might serve to highlight this difficulty.  Alternatively, it might enlighten those of us who are currently skeptical!

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEeDcsj3NsovkJhWt5+Q...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> perhaps producing two or three different flavours of possible future
> Decisions might be the more useful input to provide to a future MC.

I'm not convinced of that. Firstly, we are not in a position where this
document could be presented to the CC for a vote. All it can be is proof
that (a) there is a better way and (b) such a way can be made consistent
and coherent. In reality whatever is produced will be 'an input to the
MC', which in its wisdom will decide how much to use in any reformulated
Decisions. That would be true even with a progressive MC. So I see little
point in producing various selectively watered down versions

> definitions are often rules written in a different way:

They shouldn't be but they are, and that is a trap that we have been trying
to avoid.

> In the current document, the definition of peal includes ". . . whose
> Length is 5,000 or more Changes".

Peal is one of a number of labels used to group performances by length.
Like grouping people aged between 10 to 20 as teenagers. People of other
ages exist, and are listed a citizens, etc but aren't labelled teenagers.

> We might alternatively define a peal as ". . . whose Length is 5,000 or
> more Changes and which is rung without interval".

But then you conflate different things and create awkward categories. If a
teenager is someone between 10 and 20 in full time education, then what do
you call someone between 10 and 20 who is not in full time education?
Common sense would define him/her as a teenager not in education.

> I think both of these criteria would have to go if you really wanted to
> have no rules, otherwise you're just moving goal posts.

Rules is a crude shorthand used to represent a prescriptive ethos.
Thinking and arguing in terms of 'rules' is not helpful. Our aim (most of
us anyway) is not to 'have no rules' (aka chaos) nor just to 'move the
goalposts' (aka have different rules). It is:

- To provide orderly ways of describing things that do not implicitly rule
out the possibility of doing anything not previously codified.

- To recognise a wider range of performance standards without undermining
the respect for performances that meet widely accepted norms.

That does require definitions of terms and processes, and the enumeration
of norms. In order to work it requires people to act responsibly,
respecting established names, etc, and reporting in a disciplined way.

[Tim Barnes]

On Apr 21, 2016 11:12 AM, "John Harrison" <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
> But then you conflate different things and create awkward categories.  If a
> teenager is someone between 10 and 20 in full time education, then what do
> you call someone between 10 and 20 who is not in full time education?
> Common sense would define him/her as a teenager not in education.

That's a fair argument, essentially saying that the rule for what constitutes a peal should be kept as simple as possible - a single criterion of 5,000 or more changes (perhaps also with a performance, as opposed to practice, intent).  Simplicity always has a lot of merit!

I might argue that, additionally, "rung without interval" is an important criterion that distinguishes a peal from a miscellaneous performance (or non-standard performance, or alternative performance).  In doing so, I'm arguing for a slightly more complicated rule for what constitutes a peal than you are. 

But in the end we are just arguing about what constitutes the optimal set of rules that govern the use of important method ringing terms (or equivalently, the optimal definitions for important method ringing terms).  And this is exactly the debate that I think is needed, ultimately with a decision-making mechanism such as voting because we'll never all agree.

Don, on the other hand, seems to be saying something different.

> It is:
>
> - To provide orderly ways of describing things that do not implicitly rule
> out the possibility of doing anything not previously codified.
>
> - To recognise a wider range of performance standards without undermining
> the respect for performances that meet widely accepted norms.

I agree those are the aims, but I don't see that achieving them involves anything more than modifying the current rules (i.e. moving the goal posts).  Some MC and former MC members would argue that the current Decisions provide orderliness, and that the introduction of non-method blocks achieved the other goals you list above.

[John Harrison]

TJB:

> essentially saying that the rule for what constitutes a peal should be

> kept as simple as possible ...

Everything should be kept as simple as possible!!

> (perhaps also with a performance, as opposed to practice, intent).

I think we can tie ourselves in needless knots by over-defining things. By
definition we are only interested in performances that are
reported/published. I know ringers don't normally practice quarters and
peals (or what they are going to perform before a service). In that they
at odds with most musicians who almost always practice before a
performance. The Messiah is The Messiah, whether you are practising it or
performing it, but you would only publish the performance.

> I might argue that, additionally, "rung without interval" is an important
> criterion that distinguishes a peal from a miscellaneous performance (or
> non-standard performance, or alternative performance).

It is an important criterion, both related to current ethos and historic
precedent, which is why it is stated as a norm and why variation from it
should be declared. But that doesn't make it a 'rule' and it doesn't mean
that we have to create a name like 'non standard performance' for a bucket
into which all things that don't meet any 'rule' are dumped. A performance
is a performance. Most comply with the norms. Some deviate in ways that
make them more challenging. Some deviate in ways that make them less
challenging. Some deviate in ways that make them interesting. But they
are all performances. When compiling records it may be appropriate to note
those that are more/less challenging and/or interesting.

> ... the current Decisions provide orderliness ...

Orderliness is a valuable quality. But it isn't the only quality needed,
as I hope I illustrated in my articles.

[Tim Barnes]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 5:37 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

It is an important criterion [rung without interval], both related to current ethos and historic

precedent, which is why it is stated as a norm and why variation from it
should be declared.  But that doesn't make it a 'rule' and it doesn't mean
that we have to create a name like 'non standard performance' for a bucket
into which all things that don't meet any 'rule' are dumped.  A performance
is a performance.  Most comply with the norms.  Some deviate in ways that
make them more challenging.  Some deviate in ways that make them less
challenging.  Some deviate in ways that make them interesting.  But they
are all performances.  When compiling records it may be appropriate to note
those that are more/less challenging and/or interesting.

What I'm having difficulty with here is the extensive redefining of words that have had established meanings to ringers for a very long time.  As v7.1 stands now, a band could take a false block of 5,000 changes that is non-round, and that neither starts nor ends in rounds.  They could chop it into 5 pieces of 1,000 changes each, and ring the 5 pieces on 5 consecutive weeknights.  Different groups of people could ring on the different weeknights.  The bands could have people standing behind them to help, and the blue line could be on a music stand in front of them.  By the time they finish on Friday night, under v7.1 this group of people could say they've rung a peal, albeit with some disclosures in their peal report.  This seems to me to be going too far in broadening the type of performance to which the word "peal" should be applied.

I'm also doubtful this could pass the Council.  During the r-t discussions we saw objections to what I would consider only modest expansions of the definition of peal - e.g. a 5012 of Triples or a 5100 of Minor.

I do think that the approach of disclosure works well for some of the norms that currently apply to peals.  If the block used in a peal is non-round, and/or doesn't start / end in rounds, calling this a peal but disclosing the departure from the norms seems to be a good solution.

But for the other norms (true, without interval, each bell rung by same person, no physical aids, no stander behinders), I think it goes too far to still call these peals.  A better solution would be to introduce new terms for these performances - e.g. a "relay performance" if the bells are not rung continuously by the same people.

This does seem to be an area where we have some fairly strong differences of opinion, so not sure how we move forward from here.  Suggestions welcomed!

Tim

[Don Morrison]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As v7.1 stands now, a band could take a false block of 5,000 changes

> that is non-round, and that neither starts nor ends in rounds. They

> could chop it into 5 pieces of 1,000 changes each, and ring the 5

> pieces on 5 consecutive weeknights. Different groups of people could

> ring on the different weeknights. The bands could have people

> standing behind them to help, and the blue line could be on a music

> stand in front of them. By the time they finish on Friday night,

> under v7.1 this group of people could say they've rung a peal,

> albeit with some disclosures in their peal report. This seems to me

> to be going too far in broadening the type of performance to which

> the word "peal" should be applied.

They could do that today and submit it to Bellboard, and it would be published there just fine. It would probably even rise to the top of of the Featured Performance list. But no one has done that, and they won't unless we incite them to do so (which this conversation may well be doing! :-). Twisting ourselves into knots over what stupid people might choose to do will only result in rules that interfere with sensible people doing innovative things. Given that stupid things will be immediately recognized as such, I know which problem I'm more concerned with; and it's the same one that's actually occurred in real life.

-- 

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]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> They could do that today and submit it to Bellboard, and it would be

> published there just fine.

It's also worth asking "and if they did, what harm would result?" A bunch of the more easily wound up council members would turn red in the face, and splutter, but I'm confident they'd suffer no lasting harm. A few amusing conversations would happen in pubs after practices. And then the world of ringing would go on with its usual stream of peals of Middleton's, with the odd particles peal sprinkled in. The silly peal would not set the world on fire, and would be consigned to the same, dim corner of our memories as assorted hoaxes and performances no one wishes to repeat.

-- 

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

"We must not excite ourselves too much about political corruption or

democratic mismanagement: politics is not life, but only a graft upon

life; under its vulgar melodrama the traditional order of society

quietly persists."  -- Will Durant, "The Ten Peaks of Human Progress"

[Tim Barnes]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

They could do that today and submit it to Bellboard, and it would be published there just fine. It would probably even rise to the top of of the Featured Performance list. But no one has done that, and they won't unless we incite them to do so (which this conversation may well be doing! :-). Twisting ourselves into knots over what stupid people might choose to do will only result in rules that interfere with sensible people doing innovative things. Given that stupid things will be immediately recognized as such, I know which problem I'm more concerned with; and it's the same one that's actually occurred in real life.

We're not twisting ourselves in knots.  We're looking for the optimal definition of words like peal that removes current inconsistencies and unnecessary limitations, supports innovation, but also retains continuity with the past.  There's not a perfect solution to this.  But that just means we should try and find the best solution.  It doesn't mean we should move to having no written definitions for words like peal.

If the optimal solution was to not write down the meanings of the Exercise's terms, that would have been recognized long ago by the majority of CC members, and the Decisions would have been voted out.  To the contrary, Decisions in one form or another have remained in place for around a century.  The r-t list has debated the Decisions for the better part of a decade.  The "scrap everything" movement has never gained any real traction in that time, always remaining a minority view.

The problem is not having definitions / rules, the problem is not having the optimal ones.  And that problem is mostly the result of the CC not having been able to develop an effective process for determining what are the optimal definitions / rules.

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

It's also worth asking "and if they did, what harm would result?"

Harm is a relative term.  Clearly no one is actually harmed.  The harm is that a word (peal) that has had quite a consistent meaning for centuries, and which is the basis for extensive record keeping, comparisons, league tables, trend analysis and similar, suddenly has a very different meaning.

[Don Morrison]

​On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> that would have been recognized long ago by the majority of CC

> members, and the Decisions would have been voted out

You have a charmingly positive view of the council. Though, I think, a naive one. These are the same people who voted *for* non-method blocks, one of the stupidest ideas ever foisted on ringing. And there were myriad letters to the RW beforehand from people whose views should have been respected telling them what an ill-advised route this was to take, yet they went ahead and did it. And, now having seen how ridiculous it is in practice, have made no move to rescind it. If we view it solely as an arbiter of these sorts of matters (there are other things that I think it does a better job with), then, taken as a collective body, I wouldn't trust the council to recognize its own reflection in the mirror.

​​

I do not mean to disparage any individuals in this comment. But, combined into a mob, it does not function well in this particular arena.

-- 

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

"We are well aware from the history of science that ideas

universally believed are not necessarily true."

                    -- Jane Jacobs, _The Economy of Cities_

[John Harrison]

Tim reacted strongly to my suggestion that: ". . . whose Length is 5,000 or
more Changes and which is rung without interval" conflated two things, and
that I was therefore implying it was OK to ring a peal in several different
sessions and add them all up. I wasn't, and as Don pointed out most people
would regard a report of such performance(s) as silly people doing silly
things.

I confess that I was over-reacting in that case, probably because I was
responding (my interpretation of) the spirit of the surrounding argument
about rules, goal posts, etc). Or perhaps it was the archaic language
'rung without interval'. So apologies for clouding the issue.

We are taking about performances, and I don't see any ringer having a
problem with the concept that a performance is a continuous piece of
ringing. Thus before a service, typically there are several short
performances, whereas a peal or a quarter is a single performance.

The fact that (I think) we have a consensus that a peal (or whatever) is
defined by its length implies that we are talking about one piece, since
the idea of length becomes a bit tenuous otherwise.

A better example of a norm not to be rolled into the definition of a peal
(or other length performance) would be the current requirement for each
bell to be rung by the same person or persons throughout.

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We're not twisting ourselves in knots. We're looking for the optimal

> definition

I must respectfully disagree here. I think "optimal" would have to include "that most ringers could understand", and we seem to have abandoned that. Exactly what constitutes a peal has, in my estimation, reached monkey fist knot proportions, enough that I'm certainly having trouble understanding it now. For example, I don't think I've received any reply to my query of late last week:

​​On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> Am I reading R.3 correctly (both the current formulation, and the

> suggested modified one) as stating that if you ring a round block at

> a single stage it could be a bunch of extents plus a fractional

> extent (e.g. a 5100 of minor) it's kosher, but when you need to

> invoke R.2 (e.g. a 5100 of doubles and minor) it's treif?

Perhaps I'm mistaken in this assessment, but I suspect the fact that no one replied right away is probably evidence that it's all sufficiently convoluted that no one is sure of the answer without some contemplation. That seems to me a sign of the rope twisting on itself more than we'd like.

-- 

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

'"Good grief! Tie them together, Piglet! Can you tie a knot?" "I

cannot." "Ah, so you CAN knot." "No. I cannot knot." "Not knot?"

"Who"s there?" "Pooh!" "Pooh who?" "No! Pooh... eh... Piglet, you"ll

need more than two knots." "Not possible." "Ah, so it IS possible to

knot those pieces." "Not these pieces!" "Yes. Knot those pieces." "Why

not?" "'Cause it's all for naught."'

    -- A. A. Milne and Burny Mattinson, _Winnie the Pooh_ (film)

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

These are the same people who voted *for* non-method blocks, one of the stupidest ideas ever foisted on ringing.

There are a few points on this:

First, while you and I and 80% of the r-t list who voted in the poll think that non-method blocks are a bad idea, we don't actually know if the majority of ringers who care about these things think the same.  The CC didn't engage with the ringing community to consult, gather input and gauge opinions on this question -- i.e. a prime example of the CC's inadequate process for updating the Decisions.  Individual letters to the RW aren't necessarily a good gauge of broad opinion.  With little else to go on at the time but the MC's recommendation, it's not surprising the CC voted to pass this.

But, secondly, while the CC voted in non-method blocks, there now seems to be majority recognition by the CC that they may have been badly advised by the MC, and so they are taking steps to address this.  Hence the 2014 motion that originated outside the MC for a fundamental review, to include consultation, that was passed despite the longtime chair of the MC speaking against it.  That to me is democracy working as it should.  It's working very slowly, and we would all like it to work faster, but it seems to me that the problem of non-method blocks will get fixed in the not too distant future.

Third, my point wasn't on the merits or otherwise of individual rules that the CC has passed.  It's that the concept of *having* Decisions (defined terms / rules that are centrally maintained) hasn't been seriously challenged.  While the CC as a whole may struggle to find the best individual rules and definitions, no doubt due to the technical nature of the subject matter (again highlighting the need for a better process), I see no reason why they can't correctly judge whether it's better to have a central definition for words like peal, or to not have one.

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Tim reacted strongly to my suggestion that...

I hope I didn't react too strongly!  I know I used an extreme example.  It's always my hope that discussions on this list will be friendly and open, even if a little heated at times!

 

We are taking about performances, and I don't see any ringer having a
problem with the concept that a performance is a continuous piece of
ringing.  Thus before a service, typically there are several short
performances, whereas a peal or a quarter is a single performance.

Agreed. 

A better example of a norm not to be rolled into the definition of a peal
(or other length performance) would be the current requirement for each
bell to be rung by the same person or persons throughout.

So perhaps it would be helpful if we discuss the various norms one by one, to see what we can reach consensus on.  As mentioned previously, I like the use of disclosure for things like "non-round block", and "didn't start and finish in rounds".  This would work well, for example, for the 5039 Grandsire Triples that included the extent of rows, but which wasn't round.

But I'm afraid I still have reservations on a bell not being rung by the same person(s) throughout becoming a disclosure, but the performance still being considered a peal.  When someone says they've rung 1,000 peals or 500 quarter peals, it means today that they were part of the whole performance for all of these.  I don't think it's optimizing things if, in the future, a 1,000 pealer might have only taken part in the first hour of a few hundred of his/her peals, and then handed the rope over to someone else.

Similarly, I'd be concerned with applying the word 'peal' to anything that's false.

 

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

I think "optimal" would have to include "that most ringers could understand", and we seem to have abandoned that. Exactly what constitutes a peal has, in my estimation, reached monkey fist knot proportions, enough that I'm certainly having trouble understanding it now.

Well we haven't finished yet!  It's certainly the goal to reach the point where everything is as simple as it can be, recognizing the limits of what's possible since we're not dealing with subject matter that is particularly simple.

The current definition of Peal in v7.1 is: "A Touch whose Length is 5,000 or more Changes".  What's knotted about that?

R.3 is an exception that's intended to provide continuity with past practice that will be important to some.  Is it a perfect solution?  No, because there isn't one.  Is it the best available solution?  So far no one has suggested a better one.  If we can collectively come up with something that's better, I would be glad to include it.

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's always my hope that discussions on this list will be friendly

> and open, even if a little heated at times!

Oh, good. That means my own passionate contributions might be forgiven!

> When someone says they've rung 1,000 peals or 500 quarter peals, it

> means today that they were part of the whole performance for all of

> these.

While imagining things people *could* do:

It would be perfectly plausible for someone who doesn't even know how to handle a bell to hang on to a strap rope and move their arms up and down at roughly the right time on a covering bell, while contributing nothing to the effort, merely keeping out of the way, with the woman on the box really ringing the bell solo. But today we'd say the person pseudo-strapping had rung a peal. I really hope by saying so I don't incite someone to do it. Or, even worse, incite folks to try to come up with rules prohibiting it!

Many non-ringers, I think, if they had the patience*, could be made to ring a peal with less than three minutes instruction: ring one handbell, covering. (Yet another case of ringers not doing stupid things because they're being sensible, not because they're obeying the rules. And again, I hope I don't incite someone to try. :-)

Come to think of it, Wilfred Williams rang a peal at St Paul's, where he spent the bulk of it sitting down with a detached strap rope in his hands (well, no, he probably threw it onto the floor in disgust, but you get the idea). While there was discussion of it at the next council meeting, it was accepted/included/reported/whatever-the-current-sophistical-term-of-art-is.

On the other hand, you may recall that several decades ago Rod Pipe was trying to organize an attempt for the extent of caters, to be rung in relays. I don't recall the exact details, but I think there were to have been something like three bands each taking it in turns for a third of a day over the course of a week. Sadly it never came to fruition, but if it had been rung, anyone participating I would certainly not begrudge including it in their 1,000 peals.

* No worse than the poor pianist in a performance of Terry Riley's _In C_ (at least in the later editions; the earliest had no pulse, I believe). The peal would take longer, but the pulse-performer probably plays a lot more notes, all the same one (or, more typically, two notes an octave apart)

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The current definition of Peal in v7.1 is: "A Touch whose Length is

> 5,000 or more Changes". What's knotted about that?

But that's just the first crossing of one rope against another. From there we have to go to

I.1 Touch A Performance whose Length is 2 or more Changes.

OK, that crossing is pretty easy, too. No knots yet.

Then, to

H.1 Performance The ringing of a Block: 1. In which the band strives to achieve and maintain a high standard; and 2. In which errors are corrected as quickly as possible.

Again, that crossing is pretty easy. Maybe a little worrying how much we're having flip pages, but nothing I'm going to lose sleep over.

From there we go back to

F.1 Block A sequence of Rows, all composed of the same set of bells, that is produced from an initial Row using one or more Methods, zero or more Calls, and zero or more Cover Bells.

A little more complicated but still well within a normal ringer's ability to apprehend. And their intuition of what a bell is, and what a row is, and what a method is and what call is and what a cover bell is probably serves them well. So, yes, you're right, nice and easy. I can go ahead and send up my 5,101 of doubles and minor, starting from queens, as a peal.

At which point my ringing attorney directs me to

M.2. A Performance Report discloses any of the following if they apply:

1. The Performance was not a Round Block.

2. The Performance was not True.

....

Err, um, I guess I better go see what *those* mean. I guess it was peal, but may have been a sheep peal rather than a pig peal, since it seems some peals are more equal than other peals. OK, so

F.11 True A Block is True if each Row in the Extent of the Block’s Effective Stage occurs within the Block at most one more time than every other Row in the Extent of the Block’s Effective Stage In a Round Block, either the initial Row or the final Row (but not both) is excluded when determining whether the Block is True In a non‐Round Block, both the initial Row and the final Row are included when determining whether the Block is True When two or more Blocks are joined together by using the final Row of one Block as the initial Row of the next Block, thereby forming a longer, combined Block, the determination of whether the Block is True is assessed on the combined Block.

Ah, err, um, .... There's a lot of rope flying around now. I guess what I rang was a peal, but was it a True one? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure I need to figure out what an Effective Stage is before I can work that out. So

F.10 Effective Stage The number of Places remaining in a Block when any Fixed Cover Places are excluded.

I feel the need for drink coming on here.

While I'm fixing it, my ringing attorney, eager for another six minutes' increment of pay, draws my attention to

R.3 Peals of Doubles and Minor, etc Performances comprising: 1. Single Extent or Multi‐Extent Round Blocks of Doubles; and/or 2. Single Extent or Multi‐Extent Round Blocks of Minor; and/or 3. Single Extent or Multi‐Extent Round Blocks of Spliced Doubles and Minor that are True when considered at the Minor Stage; with each rung starting from Rounds, with a Cover Bell when ringing Doubles, and where Multi‐Extent means integer multiples of Extents, are considered to be True Performances

Err, ah, does this apply to my situation? I'm not sure. I think I'd better fortify my drink before proceeding further.

Etc.

While it may be possible to untie it, I remain firm in my conviction that exactly what a peal is, or at least what a peal not requiring extra disclosure is, is not not a knot.

(All that said, I also remain firm in my conviction that this is all better than what the council's rules are now, and I'd certainly advocate for replacing the current mess with this, if the opportunity were presented and my opinion sought. Just let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's not knotty.)

-- 

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

"In a knot of eight crossings, which is about the average-size knot,

there are 256 different 'over-and-under' arrangements possible....Make

only one change in this 'over and under' sequence and either an

entirely different knot is made or no knot at all may result."

  -- Annie Proulx, _The Shipping News_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEf8LT-nGyAnEqnFd7uq...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still have reservations on a bell not being rung by the same person(s)
> throughout becoming a disclosure, but the performance still being
> considered a peal.

Suppose that and a friend sat outside and between you listened to the whole
of twelve hours of well struck 8-bell ringing, and suppose that you had the
ability to work out the method and composition by listening, and to confirm
that it was true.

You would know by listening that the bells were being swung full circle and
not chimed by a machine. You would surely be convinced that a very long
peal had been rung.

What you could not know from the outside is who was ringing.

Now consider two scenarios:

A - 8 people emerge and claim to be the ringers. You congratulate them on
a well struck peal.

B - 12 people emerge and claim to have rung in relays, two hours on and one
hour off. You apologise for your mistaken belief that a peal had been rung
when it hadn't.

None of the ringers can claim to have rung the whole peal, but that's not
the question. Has a peal been rung or has it not? Common sense says a
peal has been rung.

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEcHoYmJ=Pai2oii5PFBBHYwNWg...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R.3 is an exception that's intended to provide continuity with past
> practice that will be important to some. Is it a perfect solution? No,
> because there isn't one. Is it the best available solution? So far no
> one has suggested a better one.

It would be much easier to understand as three separate exceptions, rather
than them all being worked into a complex inter-related set of clauses. I
had to read it several times to try to work out what it meant.

[Don Morrison]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:29 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > R.3 is an exception that's intended to provide continuity with past

> > practice that will be important to some.

I think I am likely the primary "some" to whom it is important, or at least have spoken up the most so far on the subject.

> I had to read it several times to try to work out what it meant.

Oh, good, perhaps you can help me to understand it.

As I understand things I can ring (that is, report, without stating exceptions) a peal of 5,040 doubles, 5,040 minor or 5,040 doubles and minor. Further I can ring a 5,100 of doubles or a 5,100 of minor. But I'm not allowed to ring (or, perhaps am required to state an exception? which I view as basically saying "look at me, I'm a peal that the people that make up the rules don't like") a 5,100 of doubles and minor. And if I am required to explicitly state an exception, it's kind of bizarre, since it's pretty darn obvious from the normal report that that's what I've done!

Have I got that right? Can you explain to me why it's not OK for doubles and minor when it is OK for either individually?

Or am I completely confused?

-- 

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

"The centrifugal, anarchic motions in modern politics...make

systematic unison and comprehensiveness implausible."

          -- George Steiner, _The Poetry of Thought_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFWVX4Vn98-2PWaYXo-T...@mail.gmail.com>,
Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

> > > R.3 ....

> As I understand things I can ring (that is, report, without stating

> exceptions) a peal of ...

It says: 'Performances comprising ... are considered to be true'. I read
it to mean [in addition to the general definition of truth] these special
cases are also deemed to be 'true'.

If there are other special cases that ought to be included, what is the
simplest and most general way of describing them all?

[Tim Barnes]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

Oh, good. That means my own passionate contributions might be forgiven!

I'm sure all is forgiven :)

While imagining things people *could* do:

There will always be creative ways to work around the rules, which is just an indication that many rules are imperfect.  We know that.  But it doesn't automatically follow that the only solution is therefore to have no central rules / definitions of terms.  Instead we see what sort of problems are arising from the definitions & rules, and if they're big enough, we find better ones.  What we want to avoid is having any rules or defs that have obvious flaws.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

... is not not a knot.

(All that said, I also remain firm in my conviction that this is all better than what the council's rules are now, and I'd certainly advocate for replacing the current mess with this, if the opportunity were presented and my opinion sought. Just let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's not knotty.)

Ok, in that light I accept it can be complicated to track through the full build-up to the meaning of words like peal in the document.  But I would say this is the nature of the beast we're dealing with.  I don't think we've made it more complicated than it needs to be, and hopefully we can find further ways to simplify the document.

Earlier you said, "I think 'optimal' would have to include 'that most ringers could understand'."  I'm not sure I'd go that far.  Take American Football for comparison.  Their rule book runs to over 80 pages, and I'm fairly sure it's beyond what most fans could understand (to use your phrase).  But that lack of understanding doesn't stop them from enjoying the game.  The same I think is true of ringing.  Most method ringers will understand the general rules around methods, calls, blocks, truth, etc, but mostly it will be conductors, composers and theorists who understand the detail.  Articles like the ones JAH wrote recently for the RW help attract new people into the theoretical side of ringing.

Above all, I don't think it's right to say that because it's complicated, we're better off not having it. 

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:59 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

It says: 'Performances comprising ... are considered to be true'.  I read
it to mean [in addition to the general definition of truth] these special
cases are also deemed to be 'true'.

Yes, that's the intended reading.  

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:29 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

It would be much easier to understand as three separate exceptions, rather

than them all being worked into a complex inter-related set of clauses.  I

had to read it several times to try to work out what it meant.

The issue of needing an alternate definition of truth only comes into play when at least two of the three clauses of R.3 are combined in a single performance.  When considered individually, these three clauses all follow the general definition of truth.  That makes it hard to break these out into separate clauses.

Don raises a valid inconsistency that R.3 only covers peal lengths that are integer multiples of extents.  Derek also raised the point that R.3 ought to cover QPs and half peals of the same structure.  

Lesser lengths can easily be incorporated if you keep the requirement that the length is an integer multiple of extents.

If you introduce stub blocks (e.g. to get a 5100), the question arises of whether the stub can only be in the form of one of the three clauses of R.3, or whether you could have three stubs covering all three forms.  Either could be done, at the cost of increasing complexity of the document.  (Don might need a second attorney.)  My own preference would be to keep this exception as only applying to lengths that are integer multiples of extents (but expanding it to cover lesser lengths).  I know this represents prescription, but I think it may be the best trade-off between inclusiveness and complexity.

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Take American Football for comparison. 

How interesting. In the message you are replying to I almost made an analogy to the issue of "what is a catch" in American football, but figured the allusion would be lost on nearly all readers.

> But that lack of understanding doesn't stop them from enjoying the game.

The current complexity is viewed as absurd, and certainly reduces enjoyment of the game, and increases fuming, fussing, and well- and ill-informed commentary by broadcasters. This is definitely not a model I want to follow. It is also worth noting that the NFL sends dozens of officials around educating the players and coaches on what is or is not allowed each year, and there are seven officials on the field during a game. That's more officials than members of the band for a peal of minor, and a handbell peal of maximus!

That an analogy can be made to American football seems to me to be a clear sign that things are not where they should be.

> The same I think is true of ringing. Most method ringers will

> understand the general rules around methods, calls, blocks, truth,

> etc,

I disagree. If presented with the blue line or place notation, I think most ringers would think New Grandsire, Caunton Doubles, Meson Maximus and Oxford Minimus were methods, and have no idea why the council disagrees with them. Fortunately this is an area where the alternatives proposed by this group are a big improvement: New Grandsire still doesn't exist, but the other three are methods.

-- 

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

"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must

keep moving."      -- Albert Einstein, letter to H A Einstein

[Don Morrison]

​On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you introduce stub blocks (e.g. to get a 5100), the question

> arises of whether the stub can only be in the form of one of the

> three clauses of R.3, or whether you could have three stubs covering

> all three forms. Either could be done, at the cost of increasing

> complexity of the document. (Don might need a second attorney.) My

> own preference would be to keep this exception as only applying to

> lengths that are integer multiples of extents (but expanding it to

> cover lesser lengths). I know this represents prescription, but I

> think it may be the best trade-off between inclusiveness and

> complexity.

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible trade-off. It is saying "if there is a conflict between what ringers what to do and the convenience of record keepers, we will err in the direction of making things easier and tidier for the record keepers." This is becoming the slave of our own tools. It's like going to a store and being told "I'm sorry, no, you can't buy two of these things because the computer only knows how to sell you one." If our tools don't work the way we want, they are what needs to be fixed.

It is also, to a large degree, what got us into the situation we are in. Let's not make the same mistake again.

​​

-- 

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

"Men have become the tools of their tools."

       -- Henry David Thoreau, _Walden_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEeB8LHpHUq=iD5BWnFenJgEk-Ku1...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lesser lengths can easily be incorporated if you keep the requirement
> that the length is an integer multiple of extents.

I hope you aren't suggesting that any performances must be integer
multiples of an extent.

Quite apart from being an arbitrary constraint, it would make some
performances impossible, eg date touches of Doubles or Minor

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEfYwm-mqW09+4T8-GwK...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But it doesn't automatically follow that the only solution is therefore
> to have no central rules / definitions of terms

I wish we could get away from equating rules with definitions.

Definitions are about what words mean and rules are about what people may
or may not do.

Forcing an equivalence by saying that a definition is a rule for how you
are allowed to use a word is not helpful.

There are words whose current definitions are intended to limit what people
can do rather than merely help them to describe what they do (by invoking
lots of sub requirements) but we are trying to avoid them by separation.

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> I hope you aren't suggesting that any performances must be integer

> multiples of an extent.

As I read it, performances of a single stage could be of any length, as could performances of mixed stages so long as they were true when considered as entirely rows of the larger stage. But performances of doubles and minor were, as I understood Tim to be saying, forbidden unless an integer number of extents. Though I have to confess, I'm confident we will here sometimes continue ringing quarters of, e.g., 1,251 doubles and minor, which we've found quite fun when we've rung them in the past. And I'm pretty sure, whatever rules someone else tries to impose, we'll happily pop them into Bellboard without any extra disclaimers, just as we can do today.

-- 

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

"What does it matter by what road each man seeks the truth? By no one

road can men come to the understanding of so great a mystery."

      -- Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, letter to Valentinian,

           Theodosius, and Arcadius

[Don Morrison]

​On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:35 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> I wish we could get away from equating rules with definitions.

​​These instances where we are calling things "definitions", but, really, just to impose standards of behaviour on others, remind me of a job I had, where the senior managers insisted we no longer talk about problems: they insisted there are no problems, only opportunities. Many of the toe-the-company-line engineers I worked with then started talking about "solving opportunities" with completely straight faces and no sense of irony, while others of us giggled ourselves onto the floor.

-- 

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

"When it came to avoiding going to church, the church he stolidly

avoided going to was St. Cecil and All Angels, no-nonsense C. of E.,

and he wouldn't have dreamed of avoiding going to any other."

                 -- Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett, _Good Omens_

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAO9hiFV55AMTDXR2t7YdCxAN...@mail.gmail.com>,
Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

<OT>

> there are no problems, only opportunities.

Yes, and the response was: 'Well I've got a pretty insurmountable
opportunity'.

</OT>

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

I hope you aren't suggesting that any performances must be integer
multiples of an extent.

Quite apart from being an arbitrary constraint, it would make some
performances impossible, eg date touches of Doubles or Minor

No, not at all.  To recap:

We have a general definition of truth in the document -- essentially that any row appears no more than once more than any other row.

The current Decisions allow for peals of Doubles and Minor so that, for example, you could ring 6 extents of Minor, followed by 6 extents of Doubles with a cover, and that would be a true peal.  Because the last 720 changes involve some 6-bell rows appearing 6 times, and other 6-bell rows not appearing at all, the general definition of truth isn't met.  We therefore included an exception (R.3) to cover this, for historical continuity.

Derek thought the exception should be expanded to allow for QPs and half peals on this plan, not just peals.  I agree.  Don said it's inconsistent for peals on this plan to only cover whole extents of the two stages.  I made the point that there's a question of what truth means for this type of ringing when you're dealing with less than whole extents.

 

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

The current complexity is viewed as absurd, and certainly reduces enjoyment of the game, and increases fuming, fussing, and well- and ill-informed commentary by broadcasters. This is definitely not a model I want to follow.

I'm not suggesting using American Football as a model.  The point is that even with some simplification, American Football would remain a relatively complex game where not everyone following it will fully understand all the rules.  But that won't stop them enjoying it, and it isn't necessarily an indication of a problem -- it might just indicate that the game is inherently complicated.

Second, no one thinks that American Football would be better off if all the rules were scrapped, and observers instead focused on finding ways to describe what the players choose to do on the field. 

And the current complexity is clearly not viewed as absurd by all, otherwise it would have been reduced. 

I disagree. If presented with the blue line or place notation, I think most ringers would think New Grandsire, Caunton Doubles, Meson Maximus and Oxford Minimus were methods, and have no idea why the council disagrees with them. Fortunately this is an area where the alternatives proposed by this group are a big improvement: New Grandsire still doesn't exist, but the other three are methods.

Yes, we've addressed three of your examples, and we had a 51/49 vote on the other.  I was part of the 49, so you and I were both in the minority on this point.

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:35 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

I wish we could get away from equating rules with definitions.

Definitions are about what words mean and rules are about what people may
or may not do.

I was making this point in response to the comment that we shouldn't have rules, only definitions, so that we don't proscribe anything.  My point is that having definitions can also have the effect of proscribing things.

We could define a peal as the performance of touch, without interval, of at least 5,000 changes.

Or we could say, the rules for a peal are that it's at least 5,000 changes and is rung without interval.

The net result is identical - something that doesn't meet the definition, or which doesn't follow the rules, isn't a peal.

I think we agree that the determinant for when to express something as a definition and when to express it as a rule is whether it might be expected to change over time (a rule), or whether it's expected to always remain the same (a definition).

The only way to have no proscription at all is to not write anything down, or to use loose definitions such as "peal: ringing that goes on for several hours".

Sorry if I'm belaboring this, but it's an important point that we've been stuck on.

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible trade-off. It is saying "if there is a conflict between what ringers what to do and the convenience of record keepers, we will err in the direction of making things easier and tidier for the record keepers." This is becoming the slave of our own tools. It's like going to a store and being told "I'm sorry, no, you can't buy two of these things because the computer only knows how to sell you one." If our tools don't work the way we want, they are what needs to be fixed.

It is also, to a large degree, what got us into the situation we are in. Let's not make the same mistake again.

The record-keeper point is one you've made several times, and I'm afraid it's one I've always disagreed with as not accurately reflecting the problem.

Change ringing is better off when everyone knows what terms mean.  People collect peals and QPs, create statistics, prepare league tables and so on -- this is a big part of ringing culture -- and this works best when terms are centrally defined.

We're not making the same mistake again because this (i.e. having rules) wasn't a mistake in the first place.  The problem we're trying to solve is that we need a better set of rules than the ones we currently have, recognizing that no rules will be perfect, compromises will be needed, and because of the nature of change ringing, the rules will involve some complexity.

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEdA4P74HuyAmf5NfQSF...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The record-keeper point is one you've made several times... no rules
> will be perfect, compromises will be needed, ...

Yes, they will but compromises should be based on common sense.

I think this point first emerged when GACJ suggested that layered ringing
should be described as a (say) Maximus method rather than (say) layers of
Minor methods, because it would undermine the way proving tools work.
Imposing that constraint failed what I call the common sense test.

The same would be true if you discovered that (say) method libraries
couldn't handle names of more than (say) 16 characters. It would be wrong
in my view to define 'Name' as: ' A string of not more than 16 characters
that ...'

So when considering compromises for practical reasons we should apply the
common sense test first.

As an example of the mixed stage, partial extent question, consider the
band at Anytown celebrating the 700th anniversary of Anytown's royal
charter by ringing a quarter of 700 Anytown Doubles plus 700 Anytown Minor.
(They've got a composition that varies the hunt bell to get the length of
Minor.) Can they call it a true quarter peal?

[Graham John]

JH wrote:

> I think this point first emerged when GACJ suggested that layered

> ringing should be described as a (say) Maximus method rather than

> (say) layers of Minor methods, because it would undermine the way

> proving tools work.

I might have put it badly in the first instance, but that wasn't my argument at all. What I was trying to answer, was how does one report layered ringing (both performance and composition) to describe what was rung simply and definitively. This has not otherwise been answered, other than saying that people can describe it how they like. I don't think this is very helpful, providing no standardisation or consistency. My point about tools was that they would similarly need a way of defining what was rung to capture and prove it. 

Graham

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rt-rules-subgroup" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rt-rules-subgr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rt-rules...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rt-rules-subgroup.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rt-rules-subgroup/557814c961decisions%40jaharrison.me.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Derek Williams]

Tim wrote:

> I made the point that there's a question of what truth means for this type of ringing when you're dealing with less than whole extents.

Indeed. There is no real principle that can be applied about truth in stages below triples when more than one block or touch is included in a performance. The current decisions seem based on having the minimum repetition possible, but this is still in an absolute sense not true and thus no more valid than any other definition. I still suggest that truth below triples is best defined in relation to the basic building block used, which need not necessarily be an extent. If each block in a performance is true then the performance should be regarded as true. As long as the building blocks are declared people can make there own judgements about what is acceptable.

I do think that truth is a fundamental part of defining a performance and it seems to have disappeared from our definitions.

Derek

[John Harrison]

In article <f4d6e8a5-c4e4-43a2...@googlegroups.com>,

Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still suggest that truth below triples is best defined in relation

> to the basic building block used, ...

Which would legitimise the C19 performances of 14 360s rung by advanced
Yorkshire bands.

> I do think that truth is a fundamental part of defining a performance

I agree that truth is fundamental to the ringing ethos. The problem is how
you define it for performances longer than an extent - cf RAS's Shades of
Truth'

[John Harrison]

In article
<CAHe9+AekeLAwOgb+XXf0PVrnjKqaGkzixoZ_O=76FMJU...@mail.gmail.com>,
Graham John <gra...@changeringing.co.uk> wrote:

> ... how does one report layered ringing ...This has not otherwise been

> answered, other than saying that people can describe it how they like. I
> don't think this is very helpful, providing no standardisation or
> consistency.

OK, I (we?) misinterpreted what you said. It is clearly not helpful for
people to describe things however they like. The aim should be to
establish and then stick to sensible (from various aspects) ways of
describing things. The difficulty is when people do something new (like
layered ringing) that goes beyond the current standard.

Some new descriptions are needed, and it may be sensible to put some
constraints on them to obtain consensus that they are sensible and
workable, but the constraints should not violate the 'common sense rule'
that a scheme for describing layered ringing (say 6+6) should not exclude
the use of the names of the component Minor methods.

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:41 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Yes, they will but compromises should be based on common sense.

Yes indeed. 

 

As an example of the mixed stage, partial extent question, consider the
band at Anytown celebrating the 700th anniversary of Anytown's royal
charter by ringing a quarter of 700 Anytown Doubles plus 700 Anytown Minor.
 (They've got a composition that varies the hunt bell to get the length of
Minor.)  Can they call it a true quarter peal?

That is the question and there's no objective answer, which leads to the question of what's the best solution for ringing as a whole, one that also passes the common sense test.

Looking at the proposed changes that the MC has just released, they're now relaxing the previous rule that Double and Minor etc is only rung in whole extents.  We've generally had a goal of never having more proscription than the current Decisions, only to have none, less or the same, depending on the area (hence the original reasoning for including R.3).  On this basis we shouldn't stick to whole extents only for Doubles and Minor.

Doubles and Minor has four building blocks: (1) Doubles with a fixed Cover, (2) Doubles with variable cover, (3) Minor, and (4) Mixed Doubles and Minor (with either a fixed or varying cover when ringing Doubles).

(1) is tested for truth at the Doubles stage, whereas (2) - (4) are tested at the Minor stage.

The MC's proposals only allow for one partial extent of one of these four building blocks.

If we apply the MC's proposals to your Anytown performance, it wouldn't be true as you have partial extents for both (1) and (3).

An alternative rule might be that there can be up to one partial extent in each of (1) - (4).  This would make the Anytown performance true.

Which is better and more common sense?  (And are there any alternative approaches?)

(Don separately pointed out on the r-t list that the partial extent idea is somewhat flawed in that, for example, it rules out (if applied to a QP length), a QP of Doubles comprising 4 X 240, 1 x 120, and 1 x 180, since the 180 'partial' is more than an extent.  I assume we'd want to remove this flaw in our document.)

[Tim Barnes]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do think that truth is a fundamental part of defining a performance and it seems to have disappeared from our definitions.

I think you're right.  I'm out of pocket for the rest of the weekend, but will reply further to this and other recent posts on Monday.

Tim

[Adam Beer]

In response to the partial extent question, this could become
problematic when ringing things like (say) Naremburn TB Minor. The
problem particularly applies to ringing quarter peals of such things,
as, by applying (D) B. 1 c) to quarters, you can't have a 1320 block,
but only a 720 and a 600. A true 720 of such methods is impossible
with lead-end calls only, but a 1320, in which each change occurs no
more than twice (and in the case of 120 changes, only once) is easy to
generate with lead end only calls. I suggest that the wording be
changed to:

c) Not more than one touch (?round block) consisting of a non-integer
number of extents, in which each of the possible rows occurs no more
than the next higher integer number of times.

Cheers

Adam

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "rt-rules-subgroup" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rt-rules-subgr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to rt-rules...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rt-rules-subgroup.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rt-rules-subgroup/CA%2B16xEdMMy7tc8jVE9wOZ3VQM%3D22mX5SrqBSckaMnrUDnPnAVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Barnes]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

... but will reply further to this and other recent posts on Monday.

Apologies, expected free time didn't materialize.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Adam Beer <adam...@gmail.com> wrote:

In response to the partial extent question, this could become problematic when ringing things like (say) Naremburn TB Minor ... I suggest that the wording be changed to:

c) Not more than one touch (?round block) consisting of a non-integer number of extents, in which each of the possible rows occurs no more than the next higher integer number of times.

Agree with where you're going.  But under your wording, if the touch was, e.g., 3.5 extents, you're ensuring that no row can appear more than 4 times, but you're not preventing a row from only appearing once or twice (or not at all).

I think you'd need something like:

c) Not more than one touch which is not a whole number of extents, and in which any possible row occurs no more than once more than any other possible row.

For consistency, equivalent changes would also need to be made to (D)B.3.(d)ii and (D)B.5.(e)iii (using the numbering that will result if all the proposed changes are made).

Whether it makes sense to try and get these amendments made at this month's meeting is debatable -- the risk is that this gets debated and amended on the fly at the meeting, and with no time to think about all the implications, the change is botched.  It may be best to go with what the MC has proposed at this meeting, and then work towards getting a more generic solution in place as part of the bigger review.

Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doubles and Minor has four building blocks: (1) Doubles with a fixed Cover, (2) Doubles with variable cover, (3) Minor, and (4) Mixed Doubles and Minor (with either a fixed or varying cover when ringing Doubles).

(1) is tested for truth at the Doubles stage, whereas (2) - (4) are tested at the Minor stage.

 

... An alternative rule might be that there can be up to one partial extent in each of (1) - (4).  This would make the Anytown performance true.

Which is better and more common sense?  (And are there any alternative approaches?)

Thinking about this more, the essence of Doubles and Minor ringing is (of course) that you consider truth separately at the Doubles and Minor stages.  In the language of our document, (1) above would have an Effective Stage of Doubles, and (2) - (4) would have an Effective Stage of Minor.  

So perhaps R.3 should be worded as follows:

R.3  Performances of Doubles and Minor, etc:

A Block that can be subdivided into (a) one or more Blocks that have an Effective Stage of Doubles, and (b) one or more Blocks that have an Effective Stage of Minor, is considered True if the Rows in (a) are a True Doubles Block when considered independently, and the Rows in (b) are a True Minor Block when considered independently

The same exception applies to equivalent Performances of Two and Singles, Singles and Minimus, Minimus and Doubles, and Minor and Triples

This would result in a performance like JAH's Anytown QP being true.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The same exception applies to equivalent Performances of Two and

> Singles, Singles and Minimus, Minimus and Doubles, and Minor and

> Triples

Why can't I ring an extent of triples plus a touch of major?

While considerably less likely, why not an extent of major plus a touch (or extent) of triples or a touch of caters?

​​

-- 

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

"Any fool can make a rule / And every fool will mind it."

    -- Henry David Thoreau, Journal, 3 February 1860

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEfF=GnW2ndKWyYcbKC2u3ayiY+Ky=Y+b74Y-V...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> c) Not more than one touch which is not a whole number of extents, and in
> which any possible row occurs no more than once more than any other
> possible row.

Which makes the advanced peals of spliced with 14 x 360 rung by the C18
Yorkshire bands illegal.

[Adam Beer]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:36 AM, John Harrison
<deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
> In article
> <CA+16xEfF=GnW2ndKWyYcbKC2u3ayiY+Ky=Y+b74Y-V...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> c) Not more than one touch which is not a whole number of extents, and in
>> which any possible row occurs no more than once more than any other
>> possible row.
>
> Which makes the advanced peals of spliced with 14 x 360 rung by the C18
> Yorkshire bands illegal.
>

As far as I can tell, from the current Decision on peals, these are
'illegal' anyway, so what difference does it make? Can't we have an
over-riding disclaimer at the start of the Decision to say that 'peals
complying with the Decisions current when they were rung (if
applicable) will not be retrospecitvely 'unrecognised' should the
Decisions change in the future'?
Cheers

Adam

[Derek Williams]

Why not have a rule that makes historical performances compliant. I've already suggested one. We seem extremely reluctant to make R3 permissive rather restrictive.

Derek

On Friday, 6 May 2016 13:13:45 UTC+12, Adam Beer wrote:

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:36 AM, John Harrison
<deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:
> In article

> <CA+16xEfF=GnW2ndKWyYcbKC2u3ayiY+Ky=Y+b74Y-Vt...@mail.gmail.com>,

[Adam Beer]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Derek Williams
<derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not have a rule that makes historical performances compliant. I've
> already suggested one. We seem extremely reluctant to make R3 permissive
> rather restrictive.
> Derek
>

Derek - that was what I was trying to suggest!

Cheers
Adam

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Which makes the advanced peals of spliced with 14 x 360 rung by the  C18
Yorkshire bands illegal.

Well, rather than illegal, it's whether they are true.  And if they're not, we still have an unfinished debate on whether the term 'peal' can be applied to something that isn't true, with appropriate disclosure.

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Adam Beer <adam...@gmail.com> wrote:

As far as I can tell, from the current Decision on peals, these [i.e. 14 X 360 of Minor] are
'illegal' anyway

Yes, they don't meet the current Decisions for a peal of Minor, and I believe that's been the case since about 1912.

 

Can't we have an over-riding disclaimer at the start of the Decision to say that 'peals
complying with the Decisions current when they were rung (if
applicable) will not be retrospecitvely 'unrecognised' should the
Decisions change in the future'?

I agree that nothing previously recognized should ever be unrecognized (and the document provides for the opposite -- that previously unrecognized peals that are now recognized can be retroactively recognized in the records).

And as far as I know, there's nothing in our document that increases the level of prescription - i.e. makes something no longer a peal that would have previously been a peal.  If there was, I would think we should remove it!  A key goal has been to reduce the amount of prescription, while at the same time providing centrally defined terms and maintaining sensible boundaries (e.g. 4,992 changes isn't a peal).

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Derek Williams <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why not have a rule that makes historical performances compliant. I've already suggested one. We seem extremely reluctant to make R3 permissive rather restrictive.

Derek - I may have missed something here.  I've expanded R.3 to apply to performances less than peal length, and to consider each stage separately for truth in lengths that no longer have to be whole extents.  Did you have a further suggestion?  Are you suggesting that 14 X 360 of Minor should, in fact, be considered true?

Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

Why can't I ring an extent of triples plus a touch of major?

While considerably less likely, why not an extent of major plus a touch (or extent) of triples or a touch of caters?​​

There's no particularly good reason for stopping at Minor and Triples, other than maintaining current practice.  Equally there's no particularly good reason for excluding Minimus and Minor, or for excluding Doubles, Major and Cinques, other than these haven't historically been considered true.  I'd view the current Minor and Triples cutoff as reasonable and pragmatic -- a broader definition of truth at the lower stages where there are less available rows to work with.  But I feel certain you and I will disagree on this!

[Tim Barnes]

John -- just to say I haven't forgotten about your note below.  In the interests of tackling one problem at a time, I suggest we see if we can resolve R.3 first, and then move on to the topic below around the minimum requirements for applying the term 'peal'.

I've also noted that we have unresolved points from the last few weeks on long lengths / record lengths, and whether 7 Minor is 'spliced'.

Tim

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:54 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

In article
<CA+16xEf8LT-nGyAnEqnFd7uq...@mail.gmail.com>,
   Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still have reservations on a bell not being rung by the same person(s)
> throughout becoming a disclosure, but the performance still being
> considered a peal.

Suppose that and a friend sat outside and between you listened to the whole
of twelve hours of well struck 8-bell ringing, and suppose that you had the
ability to work out the method and composition by listening, and to confirm
that it was true.

You would know by listening that the bells were being swung full circle and
not chimed by a machine.  You would surely be convinced that a very long
peal had been rung.

What you could not know from the outside is who was ringing.

Now consider two scenarios:

A - 8 people emerge and claim to be the ringers.  You congratulate them on
a well struck peal.

B - 12 people emerge and claim to have rung in relays, two hours on and one
hour off.  You apologise for your mistaken belief that a peal had been rung
when it hadn't.

None of the ringers can claim to have rung the whole peal, but that's not
the question.  Has a peal been rung or has it not?  Common sense says a
peal has been rung.

 

[Don Morrison]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

> > the advanced peals of spliced with 14 x 360 rung by the C18

> > Yorkshire bands

> I believe that's been the case since about 1912.

> And as far as I know, there's nothing in our document that increases

> the level of prescription - i.e. makes something no longer a peal

> that would have previously been a peal.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself? Doesn't this new document rubber-stamp the erasure by the Council of peals that pre-Council had been viewed as peals?

-- 

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

"Do I contradict myself? / Very well then I contradict myself."

      -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

[Tim Barnes]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

Haven't you just contradicted yourself? Doesn't this new document rubber-stamp the erasure by the Council of peals that pre-Council had been viewed as peals?

Sorry, I was referring to what would be considered a peal under the current Decisions.  Clearly our document increases the level of prescription as compared with pre-Council times.

[Don Morrison]

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Clearly our document increases the level of prescription as compared with pre-Council times.

So when in these various discussions we appeal to "tradition" we really only mean "recent tradition"? 

Whatever that means.

-- 

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

"Eight years ago I said it was time to change the tone of our

politics. In hindsight, I clearly should have been more specific."

-- Barack Obama, address to the Whitehouse Correspondants Dinner, 2016

[Derek Williams]

Yes and I appreciate these changes.

 

  Did you have a further suggestion?  Are you suggesting that 14 X 360 of Minor should, in fact, be considered true?

Yes. There is not absolute definition of truth at stages below triples. I suggest truth in each touch that makes up the block that is the performance is a general definition of truth below triples. There is no more truth in seven extents than in 14x360 or any other combination of touches. I also agree with Don that we should not be selective in our definition of tradition. New tradition is not necessarily better than older traditions.

Derek

[Tim Barnes]

Sorry for the slow reply -- New York's sharp 2nd project has taken up all my spare time this week.

On May 8, 2016 3:48 AM, "Derek Williams" <derekof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. There is not absolute definition of truth at stages below triples. I suggest truth in each touch that makes up the block that is the performance is a general definition of truth below triples. There is no more truth in seven extents than in 14x360 or any other combination of touches.

Ok, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this, while of course respecting your opinion.  In 14x360, some rows appear 14 times, some may not appear at all, and others appear between 1 and 13 times depending on the composition.  That to me is very different from all rows appearing exactly 7 times.

If you rang 14x360 of Maximus you would have the same scenario - the various possible rows appearing from 0 to 14 times.  Wouldn't this also have to be considered true if the minor equivalent is true?

And what happens if a band wants to embed one 360 inside another in a 'multi-360 block'?  How would you determine if that was true?

I do think this was a decision the CC got right in ~1912.

It's worth repeating that this is only a debate about the meaning and usage of certain words in ringing.  I would fully support any band that wished to ring a 14x360.  I would only disagree with the term 'true' being used to describe that performance.  I think it would be better to find a different word for such a performance, or more likely, to say something like "the band rang 14 round blocks that were each individually true".

I would apply the same approach to, say, ringing in whole pulls -- "true when each whole pull is considered as a single row", or to a 480 of Little Bob Minor -- "the extent with the treble fixed".

Clearly 'true' and 'peal' will be among the words that people are most passionate about, and they will no doubt be the hardest to reach agreement on.

Tim

[Tim Barnes]

On May 7, 2016 9:52 PM, "Don Morrison" <d...@ringing.org> wrote:
> So when in these various discussions we appeal to "tradition" we really only mean "recent tradition"? 
>
> Whatever that means.

In my reply to Adam, I don't think I was appealing to any type of tradition.  I was making a comparison to the current decisions and saying we weren't adding any new restrictions.