07-01-2014, 09:36 PM
“Let me ask all the readers a direct question. How would you feel if Boris Ivanov entered your section but revealed at the last minute that he wasn't able to leave Bulgaria to attend?”
I realise this passage is intended to express a hypothetical point, but to quote Perry Mason no less, it’s a leading question in that it calls for a conclusion. In plain English, it puts the expected answer into the mouth of the witness. As in a court of law, so here too it’s inadmissible. As I understand it, the motion calls for a feasibility study, and the question it hopes to answer is: is it worth planting the ‘acorn’? will it take root and grow into a stout oak tree? To talk about possible ‘cheating’ as an obstacle to be overcome is one thing - and within the parameters of the study. But, to fantasise about infamous personalities is hyperbole. For starters, we don’t know what the strength of the ‘remote’ player(s) might be. Nor do we know which Scottish communities might qualify as ‘remote’. At present, such profiles are simply concepts for the purpose of debate.
The first sentence of the Motion encapsulates the point: ‘1.2 Motion to create a Working Party to explore the use of live boards and internet to allow players from remote Scottish communities to participate in Chess Scotland congress events.’
So far, I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that the Motion should not be carried. On the contrary, I can see it being amended now or later to include disabled players and even possibly League Matches. But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. One step at a time is enough for the present.
I realise this passage is intended to express a hypothetical point, but to quote Perry Mason no less, it’s a leading question in that it calls for a conclusion. In plain English, it puts the expected answer into the mouth of the witness. As in a court of law, so here too it’s inadmissible. As I understand it, the motion calls for a feasibility study, and the question it hopes to answer is: is it worth planting the ‘acorn’? will it take root and grow into a stout oak tree? To talk about possible ‘cheating’ as an obstacle to be overcome is one thing - and within the parameters of the study. But, to fantasise about infamous personalities is hyperbole. For starters, we don’t know what the strength of the ‘remote’ player(s) might be. Nor do we know which Scottish communities might qualify as ‘remote’. At present, such profiles are simply concepts for the purpose of debate.
The first sentence of the Motion encapsulates the point: ‘1.2 Motion to create a Working Party to explore the use of live boards and internet to allow players from remote Scottish communities to participate in Chess Scotland congress events.’
So far, I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that the Motion should not be carried. On the contrary, I can see it being amended now or later to include disabled players and even possibly League Matches. But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. One step at a time is enough for the present.