<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16674" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Me:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"Anyway, following your suggestion I will come up with my own
slimline "Decisions" sometime in the next week. It should at least be a
basis for people to see where I'm coming from"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Graham: "I look forward to it"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>OK, in the couple of hours following ringing this morning I've
now prepared what I think the current Decisions from sections (D) to
(G) should be. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I have copied these below, and also created a page on the
Ringing Wiki at <A
href="http://bellringers.org/ringwiki/index.php/NewDecisions">http://bellringers.org/ringwiki/index.php/NewDecisions</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The key points are:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- I've tried to reduce constaints to the lowest common
denominator. My only real constraints that I've put into the peal section
are requirements for "true permutations".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- The guiding principle I've tried to incorporate into the
method section is that the Decisions should classify what can be done, not say
what it permitted. I've explicitly included this in a
preamble.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- Less is more. I've really tried to go "back to
basics", rather than tweaking the existing framework (my main criticism of the
Norwich Axioms). I've tried to prune all the value-judgements from the
existing Decisions. My version is only 24% of the length of the existing
Decisions. I regard this as a very good thing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- I also feel that my version should be a lot more accessible
to the general "ringer on the street". The current Decisions are
needlessly complicated, dense and technical. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- I feel no consistent rules on extension are possible, so
I've basically chopped everything, with an important proviso. Interestingly in
the existing Decisions on authorship of compositions, there is the text "...it
is impossible to devise a comprehensive set of rules which shall be equally
applicable to all methods and yet free from the imperfection of being too lax
when applied to some methods, and too stringent in the case of others..." - I
was sorely tempted to reuse this verbatim!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- A new thing I've done is to remove all reference to cover
bells, etc. This leads to lots of mess in the existing Decisions.
Fundamentally, if something is rung with a cover I've come to think
that this should be explicitly mentioned in the notation. This also makes
my decisions much more consistent and elegant. Whilst formally this would lead
to very few peals of "caters" etc being rung, the method would formally be
reclassified according to the rules. The common name wouldn't need to
change though, and the existing pages of "triples" principles, etc in the
Decisions could be preserved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>- Slightly against my better judgement, I've preserved
including the class of the method in its title.</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Of course, there are bound to be some things that need
attention and changing here. However, I think these convey what I'm trying
to get accross about a simpler, fairer and more elegant framework. Comments are
very welcome - please try to keep the volume down a bit though. I don't
want to get into the situation where people are simply shouting
tired arguments at each other, without adding anything genuinely constructive or
new. I want to avoid the possibility that people "drown" in this thread
due to too many messages - this has at times been a bit of a risk
recently. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><B><FONT size=2>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(D) Peal Ringing</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>A. Conditions required for all peals</FONT></P></B>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>A peal shall consist of either:</FONT></LI></UL>
<P><FONT face=Arial>- At least 5000 different rows</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>- A round block containing an integer number of extents,
plus a true part-extent. </FONT></P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>A peal shall be rung without interval.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>No unfair assistance shall be given to any ringers by any
person not ringing in the peal.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>The use of physical aids to memory in conducting and
ringing is not permitted.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>Any shift or error in ringing shall be corrected
immediately.</FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial>Compositions in more than one method shall be called
'spliced'. Peal reports shall state the number and names of all methods
separately, and the number of rows rung in each method.</FONT></LI></UL>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>B. Record length peals</FONT></P></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The Record Length Peal in a method or group of methods on a
given number of bells shall be the longest length complying with the Decisions
on Peal Ringing. Tower bell and handbell records shall be kept
separately.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Record Length Peals of 10000 or more rows must comply with
the additional conditions below:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(a) Not less than 14 days' notice shall be given in <I>The
Ringing World</I>, stating the place, date and hour at which the attempt is to
be made, and stating the method, number of bells and number of changes proposed
to be rung. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the Peal Records
Committee.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(b) The ringing is to be heard and the figures of the
composition to be checked throughout the peal by a competent umpire or
umpires.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(c) If a record length is rung the peal report and the
figures of the composition, if not previously published, shall be sent
immediately to the Chairman of the Peal Records Committee.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(d) For handbell peals, arrangements shall be made for
interested persons to be able to hear the attempt.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Any objection which may be taken to a peal other than one
with respect to the truth of the composition, shall be raised in writing to
<I>The Ringing World. </I>Objections that may be received should be considered
by the Central Council on a case-by-case basis, and judged against reasonable
expectations for what a peal is.</FONT></P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(E) Methods</FONT></P></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>A. Preamble</FONT></P></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The sole purpose of these Decisions on methods is to
accurately and consistently classify what can be rung. Where new peals complying
with the conditions above are rung, it is the duty of the Methods Committee to
ensure that the details are recorded, and these Decisions altered where
necessary to provide a consistent framework for so doing.</FONT></P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>B. Definitions</FONT></P></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>A <I>row </I>is a permutation on the number of bells being
rung. Each bell rings once and only once in each row.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>A <I>method</I> is defined by the places made between
successive rows of its plain course, which shall be a round block, divisible
into at least two equal parts</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Bells which are in the same position at the beginning of
each lead are known as <I>hunt bells</I>, unless they remain in the same
position throughout the lead. Bells which are not in the same position at the
beginning of each lead are known as <I>working bells</I>.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>A <I>call</I> is a means of altering the places made between
two consecutive rows in a method. It is not part of the definition of the
method.</FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial></FONT></B> </P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial>C.</FONT></B><FONT face=Arial> </FONT><B><FONT
face=Arial>Classification of methods</FONT></P>
<DIR>
<DIR></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(a) A <I>well-formed</I> path is one in which the hunt bell
has the same path if it is rung backwards and is symmetrical about two places
made half a lead apart.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(b) In <I>Plain</I> methods the hunt bell has a well-formed
path and strikes two blows in each position of the path within the
lead.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(c) In <I>Treble Dodging</I> methods the hunt bell has a
well-formed path, strikes more than two but the same number of blows in each
position of the path within the lead and makes only two places within the
lead.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(d) A Principle is a method with no hunt bell.</FONT></P>
<P> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Further to the above, a number of historical conventions
exist about further classifications of methods. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(a) <I>Place</I> methods are Plain methods in which the path
of each bell consists only of hunting and place-making.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(b) <I>Bob</I> methods are all other Plain
methods.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(c) <I>Treble Bob</I> methods are Treble Dodging methods in
which the hunt bell dodges in only one position, or that have no internal places
made at any cross section.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(d) <I>Surprise</I> methods are Treble Dodging methods in
which at least one internal place is made at every cross section.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(e) <I>Delight</I> methods are all other Treble Dodging
methods.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(f) In <I>Treble Place</I> methods, the hunt bell has a
well-formed path, strikes the same number of blows in each position of the path
within the lead and makes more than two places within the lead.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(g) In <I>Alliance</I> methods, the hunt bell has a
well-formed path, but does not strike the same number of blows in each position
of the path.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(h) In <I>Hybrid </I>methods, the hunt bell does not have a
well-formed path.</FONT></P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P></DIR></DIR>
<P><FONT face=Arial>C. Classification of methods with two or more hunt
bells</FONT></P></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Each hunt bell is either a <I>principal hunt</I> or a
<I>secondary hunt</I>. The properties (a) to (e) are considered in turn and the
paths of the hunt bells are examined until a hunt bell is found whose path has
that property. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(a) Plain hunting; (b) Treble Dodging; (c) Treble Place; (d)
Alliance; (e) Hybrid</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Methods with two or more hunt bells are classified using the
definitions and classifications for methods with one hunt bell but with
reference to all the principal hunts.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>D. Nomenclature</FONT></P>
<P></B><FONT face=Arial>The stage names for different numbers of changing bells
are:-</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>4 Minimus, 5 Doubles, 6 Minor, 7 Triples, 8 Major, 9 Caters,
10 Royal, 11 Cinques, 12 Maximus, 13 Sextuples, 14 Fourteen, 15 Septuples, 16
Sixteen, etc.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(a) The title of a method shall consist of name, class(es)
(except for principles), and stage. An up-to-date collection of rung methods
shall be kept and published by the Methods Committee of the Central Council, and
made freely available. The collection should be available ordered by method
class.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>(b) A method may not be given a name if the title (excluding
the Stage) would be the same as a method in a different class on that same
stage.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The band that first rings a peal complying with the
Decisions on Peal Ringing of a new method (or includes a new method in a
multi-method peal) shall name the method according to the conventions above, and
publish it in <I>The Ringing World</I>. The Council has the authority to change
the name if it considers a pressing reason makes this necessary.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </P><B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>E. Method Extension</FONT></P></B>
<P><FONT face=Arial>It is acknowledged that no consistent set of rules about
extending a method onto a higher stage can work in all cases. When naming a new
method, a band is encouraged to only use the name of an existing method in the
same class on a lower stage when it will be generally agreed that there are
sufficient similarities in the methods to justify this. The Council retains the
authority to change a name in the published method collections where this is not
the case.</FONT></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>