I've seen Judges ask the Validity questions in different ways.
Some come straight-out and ask the Protester if they hailed and flew a flag .. following with the questions of what was said, what was flown and when for both. I've heard arguments from some that this line of questioning is too leading.
Others, come at it indirectly, with something along the lines of, "Can you tell me what, if anything, you did at the time of the incident?". My experience has been that about 1/2 the respondents start describing the incident on the water and their actions surrounding boat handling and it takes some wrangling to get them to understand we are talking about the hail and the flag.
Personally, I've settled on something in between. My current script is ...
"After the incident, can you tell me what if any actions you took to notify the Protestee of your intent to protest?"
I'd note that the standard protest-form certainly directly leads the Protester with a section..
"Informing Protestee - How did you inform the protestee of your intention to protest?", including fields:
- By hailing? When?
- By displaying a red flag? When?
- By informing her in some other way? Give details:
Given that these very leading and straightforward questions are on the protest form itself, I'm wondering if worries about "leading questions" from the panel in the validity section are being over-weighted, and that a more direct line of questions mimicking the protest-form are fine .. and maybe time saving as they get to the questions at hand directly?
What are your thoughts? If you have a favorite way of asking the question, please share it with us. - Ang