Fork the Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Fork the Law

#11

Post by mapt » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

mapt wrote: post #10

This needs a discussion medium more sophisticated than inline highlight comments. For example: It is my contention that criminalizing noncommercial DOS attempts is highly inappropriate. They are a very good analogue for protected speech in the form of traditional protest picketing, trying to temporarily drown out and deny painless access. So long as an individual is only committing their own bandwidth to a pingstorm,…

It would also be useful, at least for me, to present the indentations implied by the outline-style lettering of bill-writing.

Re: Fork the Law

#12

Post by maradydd » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 11:56 PM UTC

mapt wrote: post #11

mapt wrote: post #10

This needs a discussion medium more sophisticated than inline highlight comments. For example: It is my contention that criminalizing noncommercial DOS attempts is highly inappropriate. They are a very good analogue for protected speech in the form of traditional protest picketing, trying to temporarily drown out and deny painless access. So long as an individual is only committing their own bandwidth to a pingstorm,…

It would also be useful, at least for me, to present the indentations implied by the outline-style lettering of bill-writing.

That's a high-priority forthcoming CSS fix, you just bumped it higher. Thanks.

Re: Fork the Law

#13

Post by maradydd » Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 12:04 AM UTC

mapt wrote: post #10

This needs a discussion medium more sophisticated than inline highlight comments. For example: It is my contention that criminalizing noncommercial DOS attempts is highly inappropriate. They are a very good analogue for protected speech in the form of traditional protest picketing, trying to temporarily drown out and deny painless access. So long as an individual is only committing their own bandwidth to a pingstorm,…

I agree it's not the ideal UI. It's similar to what Darrell Issa's keepthewebopen.com was using with Madison, and to the marked-up texts that the EFF has produced as PDFs, but there's a cognitive jump (for me, at least) between "make a comment" and "propose a change".

Fundamentally, I want a user to be able to propose one or more changes by selecting a section of text and annotating it with a replacement. So there's a semantic difference between "comment" and "change". Furthermore, I also want to be able to easily select a changeset, then produce a draft output that integrates all changes from the changeset.

I think we can do this with co-ment's existing features and maybe a little bit of extra Django hackery, but before I go haring off into the internals, is this more like what you're thinking of?