[eDebate] 5 point font

David Cram Helwich cramhelwich
Thu May 14 13:58:18 CDT 2009


Our squad uses two font sizes in our cards (9pt arial bold heavy underline
and 5pt arial). We print most of our evidence on high-resolution laser
printers. We are not 'cheating' or engaging in unethical behavior. We do it
for two reasons:
a) It saves paper. A lot of paper--maybe 20% or so per file. In a world
where it costs $160 to fly a full ev set per-tournament, this adds up.
b) somewhat undermining a, it allows us (mostly me) to put more context
around the 'read' evidence. This is bad because...?

Obviously, I agree with Josh et al. that the "Jump Around" style of
highlighting has some serious problems, but this seems like a separate
problem.

dch
umn

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Eric Morris <ermocito at gmail.com> wrote:

> As a judge, I'm fine with having read parts smaller as long as I can still
> read them. I flow in 6 point anyway, so that's fine even for the parts you
> read. I consider 5 readable while 4 is pushing it (but probably ok when
> there are paragraphs between), and better than (a) having cards that run 4
> pages and create confusion or (b) making a long card into several shorter
> ones to make the ellipse more legitimate.
>
> I've also dealt with a lot of cards that were hard to read for other
> reasons - unethically bad copying, copies printed from unethical microfiche
> (less common now), over use of unethical highlighters, unethical printers
> than make highlighting appear too dark, etc. I generally just roll with the
> punches, and say something if it gives me problems.
>
> If it's really unethical to use small font, is disregarding a card is the
> appropriate penalty? It's not the penalty we typically use for other ethical
> violations....
>
> I think ethical expectations stem from community norms so widely accepted
> that they are easily accessible to those first entering the community. But,
> I'm late on reading the latest issue of "Judging Cabal", so perhaps this has
> been declared an ethical norm.
>
> My point really is just that opinions vary about the details. Perhaps a
> great benefit of Whitman's "paperless" approach is that you can just
> increase the size with a keystroke instead of having to go back and re-print
> years worth of backfiles as the standards for font size and style evolve....
>
> I suspect some of the variance can be explained by attitude toward computer
> technology and/or nostalgia for tape & scissors. That said, I've seen actual
> printed material with a font smaller than 8. Perhaps we should thank the
> digital age for finally making it ethical to quote such sources!
>
> Ermo
>
> p.s. What's the topic area?
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090514/0d9984aa/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list