 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
Here are some possibilities:
- One possibility is simply to start at 1 and count upward on a first-
come, first-serve basis, one number at a time. (I think this might
be what ICQ does...?) Whatever number ya get, ya got, and that's that.
- Another possibility is a variant of that where you get to choose your
number from a list of the lowest 100 available numbers. (This would
allow the superstitious among us to avoid scary numbers like 13, 666,
or 7734 -- or to have a better chance at getting something containing
a favorite or lucky number, like 23, 69, or 7777.)
- Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers. For
example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
gets what.
All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
--Todd
[followups set to lugnet.admin.general]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
You could end up with a bidding war similar to personalised car licence
plates.
Numbers like 1, 13 and dare I say it 69 may raise a lot of interest. Then
again this could be a good thing if people are prepared to pay for these
numbers via an auction and thus become a good money earner for Lugnet
Corporation.
Whether this would result in a thriving black market in "Lugnet ID Numbers"
would remain to be seen. For instance, Wes De Beer could successfully bid
US$231 on ID number 1 then sell it a year later to say Eve Asian for US$541.
Whether Todd would be happy with this is unknown but a lot of people could
stand to make a lot of money if the whole situation isn't handled properly.
Sanjay
<Tougue firmly in cheek for the duration of this post>
"If you don't have a sense of humour you don't have any sense"
Todd Lehman wrote in message <377be037.91385342@lugnet.com>...
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> Here are some possibilities:
>
> - One possibility is simply to start at 1 and count upward on a first-
> come, first-serve basis, one number at a time. (I think this might
> be what ICQ does...?) Whatever number ya get, ya got, and that's that.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> [...]
> Whether this would result in a thriving black market in "Lugnet ID
> Numbers" would remain to be seen. For instance, Wes De Beer could
> successfully bid US$231 on ID number 1 then sell it a year later to say
> Eve Asian for US$541.
> [...]
LOL! :)
BTW, I realize from your final paragraph that you weren't 100% serious, but
it's worth reiterating something anyway for anyone following along... The
ID#'s won't be transferrable, so whatever number you pick is with you for
life. In fact, that's the whole reason for them in the first place: to
have permanent, uniquely individual ID#'s -- one per person -- for things
like voting, auction feedback, etc. So, it won't be possible for someone
to give up or trade in or sell their ID#. And if we lose anyone, their
ID# doesn't get recycled.
However, there will definitely be other things which are transferrable --
and so we might conceivably see person-to-person sales, swaps, or auctions
of those popping up. (One example might be house locations on the community
map.)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Along the lines of the community map, I suggest starting each of the numbers
with some type of classifying attribute. In other words beginning all member
numbers with the year of birth, or year they started reading rtl, they year
they signed up to post on lugnet, etc. This method would give individuals
character according to their number. For example Gary Istock (because nearly
everyone knows who he is (and is aware of the London Bus story )) might have
a member number that would begin with 25LB000 representing 25 London Busses
in his collection.
I just think that since it is not really possible to keep track of all
members it would be nice if you could know where they are coming from, a
little bit about them.
I don't know if alphanumeric is a possibility but another thought would
be to begin the ID with a letter representing favorite theme or subtheme. If
I knew of a lugnutter that was as disappointed by the loss of the time
twister series, I might be more inclined to contact them in a non public
forum. (I am joking of course) This would also be a useful feature if say
there were a chat room. If you had enough "fields" the possibility also
opens up that multiple participants could have 8880 or 6990 as their
favorite set represented by the last four digits of the member number. You
could easily identify who has similar interests etc.
Just a few rambling thoughts.
-Nick
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
[snip]
>
> However, there will definitely be other things which are transferrable --
> and so we might conceivably see person-to-person sales, swaps, or auctions
> of those popping up. (One example might be house locations on the • community
> map.)
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Nick Goetz" <ngoetz@iquest.net> writes:
> Along the lines of the community map, I suggest starting each of the numbers
> with some type of classifying attribute. In other words beginning all member
> numbers with the year of birth, or year they started reading rtl, they year
> they signed up to post on lugnet, etc. This method would give individuals
> character according to their number. For example Gary Istock (because nearly
> everyone knows who he is (and is aware of the London Bus story )) might have
> a member number that would begin with 25LB000 representing 25 London Busses
> in his collection.
I wonder if that opens up to too much variation and confusion. No one can
ever change their ID# once it's been chosen, so the more variation or
flexibility there is, the more chance there is for frustration when
someone's tastes change.
> I just think that since it is not really possible to keep track of all
> members it would be nice if you could know where they are coming from, a
> little bit about them.
That's what the pages themselves are for, and associations with various
groups.
> I don't know if alphanumeric is a possibility but another thought would
> be to begin the ID with a letter representing favorite theme or subtheme.
Ten years ago my favorite theme was Castle (sic). Five years ago it was
Space. Now it's Aquazone (sic). What do I do when my tastes change?
> If
> I knew of a lugnutter that was as disappointed by the loss of the time
> twister series, I might be more inclined to contact them in a non public
> forum. (I am joking of course)
Oh, there'll be plenty of other, more efficient ways to find like-minded
people, don't worry about that. :)
> This would also be a useful feature if say
> there were a chat room. If you had enough "fields" the possibility also
> opens up that multiple participants could have 8880 or 6990 as their
> favorite set represented by the last four digits of the member number. You
> could easily identify who has similar interests etc.
>
> Just a few rambling thoughts.
Thanks for your thoughts, Nick. I see what you're getting at. Having
unique ID#'s are (from the system's point of view) actually mostly for
internal database purposes and URL purposes... On the human level, there
will be much nicer ways of learning of/about other people, etc. -- more than
what any small coded number could convey. When links to people's pages show
up on other system pages, BTW, the hyperlink will show their name and not
their number. And then from their page, you can visit and learn all that
you want to know (from what they have chosen to tell about themselves).
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
(Todd Lehman) wrote:
> Having
> unique ID#'s are (from the system's point of view) actually mostly for
> internal database purposes and URL purposes.. • <snip>
> BTW, the hyperlink will show their name and not
> their number. And then from their page, you can visit and learn all that
> you want to know (from what they have chosen to tell about themselves).
I have several suggestions:
1) Why not just make the numbers internal to the system so that we
never see them. That way we could all be given any old number and the
part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure
that systems like ebay have numbers, but heck if I know what my number
is because I just use my username.
2) Assuming we do usernames, it won't really matter how the numbers
are assigned. You could just start from 1 (or zero), announce "we're
starting to take memberships" and give the numbers in order to whoever
gets there first. Of course Todd gets #1 since he's doing the setup
and will logically add himself first. Oh, and Todd, no matter how
it's done, if you don't want #1 I think you've been out voted. ;)
3) Having said all of that, I want number 27 if it's all the same to
everyone.
Ben Roller
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Ben Roller writes:
> [...]
> 1) Why not just make the numbers internal to the system so that we
> never see them.
Because of URLs that contain them.
> That way we could all be given any old number and the
> part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure
> that systems like ebay have numbers, but heck if I know what my number
> is because I just use my username. [...]
I've yet to see a username-system that (a) handles collisions in a
reasonable way if the usernames are system-assigned, or (b) doesn't lead
quickly to garbage if the usernames are user-chosen.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Ben Roller writes:
> > [...] That way we could all be given any old number and the
> > part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure
> > that systems like ebay have numbers, but heck if I know what my number
> > is because I just use my username. [...]
>
> I've yet to see a username-system that (a) handles collisions in a
> reasonable way if the usernames are system-assigned, or (b) doesn't lead
> quickly to garbage if the usernames are user-chosen.
Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Awright, maybe it's worth taking a major 180 here and
taking a closer look at non-numeric member-id's (i.e., usernames).
Personally, I think usernames are nothing but a major source of headaches
once a user population grows above a certain point, but maybe together we
can devise something that won't be too restrictive but also won't be too
abuse-prone. Like I said, I've never seen a username-system that handles
collisions reasonably or doesn't lead to garbage if users have full control
over their username/member-ID. But I guess that's no reason to give up.
Anyway, the basic idea behind member-ID's is this: For the foundations of
unique member identities, each person needs a unique ID of some sort. That
could be a simple number, or a sequence of letters, or a combination of
letters and numbers, or whatever. The challenge is to choose a system which
allows a certain amount of personal expression, but doesn't encourage (or
hopefully even permit) crap. We don't want LUGNET to turn into another AOL
(for example) in terms of usernames.
The ID's need to be unique and permanent because they form the basis of,
among other things, URLs which represent a person's homepage within the
community, and tacit cognitive connections which build over time as people
get to know one another. For example, someone who sees the letters "cjc"
somewhere today is likely to think of Mike Stanley if they exchange email
with him often. Or someone who sees the letters "moz" somewhere today is
likely to think of Chris Moseley if they know him by that nickname.
So the unique ID is a necessity from an internal mechanism point of view,
but it's not something that can ever be totally hidden from view, because
whatever form the ID's take (numeric or alphanumeric or whatever) the ID's
must inevitably appear in URLs.
Let's take a look at both ends of the spectrum and then a closer look at a
few things in the middle of the spectrum. Perhaps something in the middle
represents a reasonable compromise between the two extremes.
At one end of the spectrum, there is a system which assigns simple counting
numbers -- like 7, or 55, or 1234 -- on a first-come first-serve basis,
starting at 1 and counting upward. I think this is the way ICQ works, and
it's simple and effective.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is a system which allows people to
choose whatever "screen name" or "handle" or "username" they please,
provided that no one else has yet obtained that name. This is the way AOL
works, and it's also simple and effective.
However, both extremes have deep fundamental problems.
At the purely numeric extreme (i.e., ICQ), there is no hint of who someone
is just by their number. And even if you know someone by their number,
numbers are typically relatively easy to forget -- especially when trying to
keep a few dozen or hundred of them straight.
At the ad-hoc alpha-numeric extreme (i.e., AOL), there is sometimes a decent
hint at who someone is by their username/handle, but really only if they
have chosen to use their real name, or if they have used a reasonable
nickname that makes any sense. AOL-style names are surely more difficult to
forget than numbers, but they are hideously prone to garbaging-up.
Here are some examples of problems with the AOL approach. I don't know what
the character-length-limit is for AOL screen names, but I think it's more
than eight. However, even eight characters is plenty to represent anything
from the childishly cutesy...
acidburn, phyrefox, defcon5, neozero, immortal, genepool, pubert, etc.
to the disgorgingly trite...
k00l1, in10siv, l8ralg8r, 2cool4u, sk8rd00d, me2me2me, win95sux, faqewe,
bumsnifr, ob1ken, ds9rulez, etc.
to the potentially sexually, racially, or religiously offensive...
hot4u, 6of9, mastrb8r, 13incher, gotohell, satan666, nigrhatr, killfags,
etc.
(The above names are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to actual screen
names or handles is a coincidence.)
Now, if people can specify whatever name they please, how can this type of
garbage be prevented in a completely automated way? I'm not sure that
it can. People are still infinitely more creative than machines. That
means there has to be at least -some- set of restrictions, whether imposed
via machine (automatic) or via human intervention (manual), in order to pass
or fail each username request. Human intervention is not really a serious
time issue, but it may potentially border on some form of censorship.
One partial solution might be to disallow numbers altogether, or to disallow
the use of numbers as letter-substitutes ("l8r", "k00l", "in10se", etc.),
but still to allow things like "whg3" (that's one way to write William H.
Gates III -- eek! :-). But I don't think that's a full solution.
In the interests of diplomacy, certain character sequences such as "lego",
for example, must be prevented, unless someone's actual real-life name
actually contains those letters. (According to www.switchboard.com, there
are more than 300 people in the U.S. with the last name Lego. There's even
someone in California and someone in Oregon with the last name Lugnet. :-)
So far so good? No...
What if someone other than Tim Courtney or Brandon Grifford attempted to
acquire the username of "zacktron"? How would something like that be
detected and dealt with? Or what about someone other than Tom McDonald
attempting to acquire the username of "radiotitan"? Or what about someone
other than Simon Denscombe attempting to acquire the username of "carbon60"?
Conclusion: It just isn't mechanically feasable to allow anywhich arbitrary
username to be chosen.
So what's the next best thing? Say, maybe something that involves someone's
real-life name but still allows a modicum of flexibility and creativity?
One thing might be to allow any sequence of letters taken in order from
someone's full real-life name. For example, (let's use LarryP, because I
don't think he'll mind), Larry could go for any of:
lp, lar, larry, larryp, lpien, lpieniazek, etc.
or he could simply use his initials (although I don't know what his middle
initial is, so I can't put that one in the list). Let's see, what would I
do? I'd probably go for something like one of:
tsl, todd, toddl, tlehman, toddlehman, etc.
and perhaps Suzanne would go for something like one of:
suz, srich, suzanne, etc.
So that actually seems like a modus vivendi to me. Sandra Linkletter of RTL
could even keep her cool handle "slink".
(What would YOU pick for your name?)
Now, are there any loopholes or problems in this scheme?
One potential problem is, ironically, three-letter nicknames (for example,
"lar" as shown above). I believe there is actually a Larry A. Rosler in the
computing community -- so not only might his familiar nickname also be
"lar", but his initials are "lar". Once a username is chosen or assigned,
it is permanent for lifetime, so LarryP wouldn't ever be able to sell his
member-ID of "lar" to someone such as LarryR. That's one potential problem.
Another potential problem is due to the permanence of the member ID's: if
someone marries or divorces and changes their last name, and if they used
their old last name in their member-ID and wanted to change it to use their
new last name, then they're S.O.L.
A third potential problem is much more complex and socio-psychological.
Under the scheme described above, Larry Pieniazek could have "lar" and Paul
Gyugyi could have "gyug", but Chris Moseley could not have "moz" and Joseph
Gonzalez could not have "gonzo" (because of s=>z and a=>o). This would be
unfortunate because all four of those nicknames are something those four
people have used publicly, and all four of them are sense-making nicknames.
OK, so if the rules were bent slightly so that Chris Moseley could have
"moz" and Joseph Gonzalez could have "gonzo", then is that bending enough?
What other near-border cases are there?
Of course it makes sense that Roberts could always be Robs or Bobs;
Jennifers could always be Jennys or Jens; Michaels could be Mikes; Anthonys
could be Tonys or Ants; Fredriks could be Freds or Riks; and Williams could
be Wills or Bills, etc.
Ahem -- say again on that last one? What about someone named William
Williamson? Could he go by "billbill"? (I saw a "billbill" on the net
once.) If so, could John Williams go by "johnbill" or would he have to use
"johnwill" or some other thing?
More food for thought:
Should Asrun Kristmundsdottir be permitted the member-ID of "kristmas"?
Should Nick Holdbrooks be permitted the member-ID of "ickna" (I assume
that's Piglatin for "Nick")? Should Richard Mussler-Wright (more famously
known as "Weird Richard") be permitted the member-ID of "weirdrichard"?
Should Ed Jones (famously known as Ed Boxer) be permitted the member-ID of
"edboxer"? Should David K.Z. Harris be permitted the member-ID of "zonker"?
The list of borderline cases goes on and on...
(I have opinions on all of the above, but I'll keep them to myself for the
time being...)
Some interesting three-letter-initial combintations, BTW: Alan B. Clegg
could be "abc"; Allan R. Martin could be "arm"; and Sean O'Brien could be
"sob". Those are all kind of interesting. :)
Anyway, I think something like this (above) -- a scheme which is still
highly objective, and fair, and only a very tiny bit subjective -- would
give a large amount of flexibility, and a lot of understandability and
memorability, and yet still avoid the garbage types of names that can crop
up in an unregulated system -- all without doing anything that could be
construed as censorship. It's true that some people would definitely not
get the member-ID that they would most favorably desire, but in any system
-- even an unregulated one such as AOL's -- there's never such a guarantee
because someone could have taken your favorite name before you.
Well, that's probably enough brain-dumping for now...
[followups to lugnet.admin.general]
--Todd
p.s. To anyone who reads this post and feels I've really gone out to the
looney farm this time, well, all I can say is that I actually find this
topic endlessly fascinating! :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Awright, maybe it's worth taking a major 180 here and
> taking a closer look at non-numeric member-id's (i.e., usernames).
>
> Personally, I think usernames are nothing but a major source of headaches
> once a user population grows above a certain point...
I totally agree.
>
> Anyway, the basic idea behind member-ID's is this: For the foundations of
> unique member identities, each person needs a unique ID of some sort. That
> could be a simple number, or a sequence of letters, or a combination of
> letters and numbers, or whatever. The challenge is to choose a system which
> allows a certain amount of personal expression, but doesn't encourage (or
> hopefully even permit) crap. We don't want LUGNET to turn into another AOL
> (for example) in terms of usernames.
Hey watch the AOL bashing :')
But since you brought up AOL usernames - AOL allows the cability of 5 different
screen names for the same account. This allows familys to have a name for each
memebr of a family. Not to throw too big of a monkey wrench but someone like
William Swan and his son - would they have to get two memberships or could they
get two names registered under one membership?
>
[snip]
>
> However, both extremes have deep fundamental problems.
>
> At the purely numeric extreme (i.e., ICQ), there is no hint of who someone
> is just by their number. And even if you know someone by their number,
> numbers are typically relatively easy to forget -- especially when trying to
> keep a few dozen or hundred of them straight.
Especially those of us that have never memorized set numbers. Good lord, who
is number 753?
> At the ad-hoc alpha-numeric extreme (i.e., AOL), there is sometimes a decent
> hint at who someone is by their username/handle, but really only if they
> have chosen to use their real name, or if they have used a reasonable
> nickname that makes any sense. AOL-style names are surely more difficult to
> forget than numbers, but they are hideously prone to garbaging-up.
But AOL umpteen kabillion members. I don't think there would be much conflict
for msot names. Of course there will be some.
> Here are some examples of problems with the AOL approach. I don't know what
> the character-length-limit is for AOL screen names, but I think it's more
> than eight. However, even eight characters is plenty to represent anything
> from the childishly cutesy...
> to the disgorgingly trite...
> to the potentially sexually, racially, or religiously offensive...
>
> hot4u, 6of9, mastrb8r, 13incher, gotohell, satan666, nigrhatr, killfags,
> etc.
>
> (The above names are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to actual screen
> names or handles is a coincidence.)
Well, this one is for real - Joe Libido (and he's a great guy).
> Now, if people can specify whatever name they please, how can this type of
> garbage be prevented in a completely automated way? I'm not sure that
> it can. People are still infinitely more creative than machines. That
> means there has to be at least -some- set of restrictions, whether imposed
> via machine (automatic) or via human intervention (manual), in order to pass
> or fail each username request. Human intervention is not really a serious
> time issue, but it may potentially border on some form of censorship.
If you are going to go with usernames, I think you would have to have a 24-48
hour turnaround for username approval. That is the only way you are going to
be able to guarantee that the garbage/filth doesn't slip through. I use to
work for the Jockey Club - the thoroughbred horse registry for North America.
We had a piece of software that was supposed to eliminate garbage/filth.
Unfortunately, it allowed several to slip through: Fa Q; Mort Its; None Hung
Low (it was gelding).
If you go with usernames, you are really need to decide if you really want to
take the time and effort to police those name.
>
[snip]
> What if someone other than Tim Courtney or Brandon Grifford attempted to
> acquire the username of "zacktron"? How would something like that be
> detected and dealt with? Or what about someone other than Tom McDonald
> attempting to acquire the username of "radiotitan"? Or what about someone
> other than Simon Denscombe attempting to acquire the username of "carbon60"?
>
> Conclusion: It just isn't mechanically feasable to allow anywhich arbitrary
> username to be chosen.
It cannot be mechanical, it'll have to be manual.
[snip]
> (I have opinions on all of the above, but I'll keep them to myself for the
> time being...)
Well, the name issue is already controlled by registering for LUGNET
News/Discussion Groups set-up - you have to use your real name. I can't post
as Ed Boxer here now, although I certainly wish I could. Allowing people to
use their RTL aliases would create a whole other dilemna - registering aliases
for News/Discussion groups.
[snip]
> p.s. To anyone who reads this post and feels I've really gone out to the
> looney farm this time, well, all I can say is that I actually find this
> topic endlessly fascinating! :-)
Not the looney farm. I just think you've spent too much time in your garage
sniffing ABS. :')
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Ed Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> writes:
> But since you brought up AOL usernames - AOL allows the cability of 5 different
> screen names for the same account. This allows familys to have a name for each
> memebr of a family. Not to throw too big of a monkey wrench but someone like
> William Swan and his son - would they have to get two memberships or could they
> get two names registered under one membership?
One and exactly one ID per person is the foundation principle. I suppose
there could be such a thing as family or group discounts, but each person
has to receive their own membership. The membership is what handles data on
a person-by-person basis.
> > At the ad-hoc alpha-numeric extreme (i.e., AOL), there is sometimes a
> > decent hint at who someone is by their username/handle, but really only
> > if they have chosen to use their real name, or if they have used a
> > reasonable nickname that makes any sense. AOL-style names are surely more
> > difficult to forget than numbers, but they are hideously prone to
> > garbaging-up.
>
> But AOL umpteen kabillion members. I don't think there would be much conflict
> for msot names. Of course there will be some.
Well, AOL names are prone to garbaging up not only because of collisions
(jim21, jim22, jim23, etc.) but because of the overkill in expressiveness
which long alphanumeric character strings provide.
> If you are going to go with usernames, I think you would have to have a 24-48
> hour turnaround for username approval. That is the only way you are going to
> be able to guarantee that the garbage/filth doesn't slip through. I use to
> work for the Jockey Club - the thoroughbred horse registry for North America.
> We had a piece of software that was supposed to eliminate garbage/filth.
> Unfortunately, it allowed several to slip through: Fa Q; Mort Its; None Hung
> Low (it was gelding).
Awesome! Those are great examples! :) Exactly -- people are infinitely
more creative than computers. There's no way a computer could find and
filter out every single potential problem. (Well, at least not in the next
10+ years.)
But didn't you run into potential censorship issues? Or did your rules
state that the names had to fit some defined set of object rules or
somesuch?
> If you go with usernames, you are really need to decide if you really want to
> take the time and effort to police those name.
No, it doesn't make sense to police the names after the fact -- only before.
Filtering out garbage/filth by hand at sign-up time isn't a big deal
time-wise, but it could be a big deal socio-psychologically in some cases,
as it is subjective. So I am looking for something that's objective but
still doesn't allow garbage/filth.
> Well, the name issue is already controlled by registering for LUGNET
> News/Discussion Groups set-up - you have to use your real name. I can't
> post as Ed Boxer here now, although I certainly wish I could. Allowing
> people to use their RTL aliases would create a whole other dilemna -
> registering aliases for News/Discussion groups.
You can certainly post as Ed Boxer -- as long as your real-life-name field
still shows up in the news posts as your real name, Ed Jones. Or you could
even set your real-life-name to say Ed "Boxer" Jones and use Ed Boxer in
your 'From' lines. If you know how to change your newsreader's name
settings, I can walk you through the setup on the server side.
The only thing you can't do is say that Ed Boxer is a real person who is
different from Ed Jones (unless Boxer is part of your legal name).
For example, you are current submitting posts as:
From: "Ed Jones" <edboxer@aol.com>
and the server adds:
X-Real-Life-Name: Ed Jones
to the headers of your posts.
But if you wanted, you could submit posts as:
From: "Ed Boxer" <edboxer@aol.com>
and the server would still simply add:
X-Real-Life-Name: Ed Jones
to your posts. That maintains the association between Ed Boxer (your
alter-ego) and Ed Jones (your real name), but it downplays your real name
somewhat.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> get to know one another. For example, someone who sees the letters "cjc"
> somewhere today is likely to think of Mike Stanley if they exchange email
> with him often. Or someone who sees the letters "moz" somewhere today is
> likely to think of Chris Moseley if they know him by that nickname.
Not sure where I stand on all this or if it really matters to me, but
I thought I would mention this.
All (or most, anyway) of my current login names that I actually have
to type on a regular basis are cjc. Yeah, I like the initials because
they were Caesar's, but they're also really easy to type quickly, and
3 characters happened to be the minimum on the system I changed them
on first.
In reality, though, nobody thinks of me as that. Nor, really, do most
people think of me as Mike, Michael, Stanley, or anything resembling
(in English anyway) my given names. Most people at work and most of
my friends call me Misha, a carryover from what my Russian instructors
and fellow classmates called me at DLI while I was in the Army.
Misha is actually what I tend to think of myself as, for reasons I
can't quite explain, and I use it on systems that I use via the web or
other ways that remember who I am (or who I should be) because of
cookies or whatever.
So would this plan/scheme you have in mind allow for me to be Misha?
It really amounts to Mike anyway.
Something to think about, I guess...
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - A great new resource for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley) writes:
> Not sure where I stand on all this or if it really matters to me, but
> I thought I would mention this.
>
> All (or most, anyway) of my current login names that I actually have
> to type on a regular basis are cjc. Yeah, I like the initials because
> they were Caesar's, but they're also really easy to type quickly, and
> 3 characters happened to be the minimum on the system I changed them
> on first.
Well, the nice part about this is that, unless you have cookies completely
disabled, you won't ever have to type your username. So if your username is
something other than "cjc", then it wouldn't be a constant frustration to
switch back and forth.
> In reality, though, nobody thinks of me as that. Nor, really, do most
> people think of me as Mike, Michael, Stanley, or anything resembling
> (in English anyway) my given names. Most people at work and most of
> my friends call me Misha, a carryover from what my Russian instructors
> and fellow classmates called me at DLI while I was in the Army.
>
> Misha is actually what I tend to think of myself as, for reasons I
> can't quite explain, and I use it on systems that I use via the web or
> other ways that remember who I am (or who I should be) because of
> cookies or whatever.
>
> So would this plan/scheme you have in mind allow for me to be Misha?
> It really amounts to Mike anyway.
>
> Something to think about, I guess...
That *is* something deep to think about, wow.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
>
> That *is* something deep to think about, wow.
>
> --Todd
More than you think upto now I think..:-) What about profanity in other
languages than English? Lugnet is a multi national community. One example: a
simple and innocent looking abbreviation "ats2", which could be both read as
its spelling "atese iki" and as a combined word "atsiki". The second one
means exactly the reproductory extremity of a male horse, expressed in the
most rude/slang way possible.
Another thing to consider: What about letters like ç and ö like in my name?
They are already part of code page 437, but I know they could cause some
problem here or there.
And the most important, what about my nick "teyyareci". I've been using it
since I'm first started using Internet, and it has been a nick for also long
before my Internet life. You already mentioned some "special" provisions to
allow older users to continue their well known nicks, that are not related
to their names, But how can you explain this to a new comer who also want to
use his beloved nick? "Hey, lamer. He was already here when you still
sitting on your mother's laptop. Don't ask this much lame questions
ever!.."...:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > That *is* something deep to think about, wow.
>
> More than you think upto now I think..:-) What about profanity in other
> languages than English? Lugnet is a multi national community. One example: a
> simple and innocent looking abbreviation "ats2", which could be both read as
> its spelling "atese iki" and as a combined word "atsiki". The second one
> means exactly the reproductory extremity of a male horse, expressed in the
> most rude/slang way possible.
Wow.
Well, at least if someone uses "ats2", it'd have to be logically formed
from their name, so it would be clear that they weren't just doing it to
be rude/offensive.
> Another thing to consider: What about letters like ç and ö like in my
> name?
They're not a problem at all from an internal coding standpoint, but they
don't work in URLs, so the letters have to be ASCII a-z only. Your best
bet might be something like 'sgore'.
> They are already part of code page 437, but I know they could
> cause some problem here or there.
What is code page 437? Is that some Microshaft thing? (I seem to remember
something like this back from my NT/army days.) The important thing, really,
is that ç and ö are part of ISO-8859-1 (a real standard), but not part of
ASCII (another real standard). Microshaft code pages aren't real standards.
> And the most important, what about my nick "teyyareci". I've been using
> it since I'm first started using Internet, and it has been a nick for
> also long before my Internet life. You already mentioned some "special"
> provisions to allow older users to continue their well known nicks, that
> are not related to their names,
No, that wasn't to give special treatment to anyone to use nicks unrelated
to their names, it was citing examples of gray-area cases.
> But how can you explain this to a new comer who also want to
> use his beloved nick? "Hey, lamer. He was already here when you still
> sitting on your mother's laptop. Don't ask this much lame questions
> ever!.."...:-)
> Selçuk
LOL!
Exactly -- that's why "seniority" only should count in the first-come-first-
serve sense, but not ever in a "truly special favors" sense.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > [...] You already mentioned some "special" provisions to allow older
> > users to continue their well known nicks, that are not related to their
> > names,
>
> No, that wasn't to give special treatment to anyone to use nicks unrelated
> to their names, it was citing examples of gray-area cases.
OK, I see the confusion now... Sorry for being ambiguous. When I wrote:
"Anyway, here are some examples that do seem gray to me and may need
careful attention...(these have all been disclosed publicly on LUGNET
by their owners)"
in:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=2082
I meant carefully and tactfully deciding whether or not those ID's would be
OK, and if necessary, gently and diplomatically explaining why they weren't.
I didn't mean to imply that they were OK, a priori or otherwise, and
certainly not because someone was an older user. I just meant that they
were potentially sensitive cases.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > [...] You already mentioned some "special" provisions to allow older
> > > users to continue their well known nicks, that are not related to their
> > > names,
> >
> > No, that wasn't to give special treatment to anyone to use nicks • unrelated
> > to their names, it was citing examples of gray-area cases.
>
> OK, I see the confusion now... Sorry for being ambiguous. When I wrote:
>
> "Anyway, here are some examples that do seem gray to me and may need
> careful attention...(these have all been disclosed publicly on LUGNET
> by their owners)"
>
> in:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=2082
>
> I meant carefully and tactfully deciding whether or not those ID's would be
> OK, and if necessary, gently and diplomatically explaining why they • weren't.
> I didn't mean to imply that they were OK, a priori or otherwise, and
> certainly not because someone was an older user. I just meant that they
> were potentially sensitive cases.
>
> --Todd
I've already get it. But the confusing phrase was not this one, it was:
"Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all *certainly*
continue to use these "handles" as they currently do in the newsgroups --
we're not talking here about changing anything anything -- just about how to
move forward."
:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> I've already get it. But the confusing phrase was not this one, it was:
>
> "Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all
> *certainly* continue to use these "handles" as they currently do in the
> newsgroups -- we're not talking here about changing anything anything --
> just about how to move forward."
>
> :-)
Oh. YES, *that* is *really* ambiguous. I see how anyone could read the
wrong thing in that. Oops. OK, let me reword that to say what I actually
meant to say:
"Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all certainly
continue to use these "handles" in news messages (just exactly as they have
been and continue to do now -- in news messages). So this isn't talking
about changing anything -- but simply how to move forward in a semi-related
area. Handles and screen names are still fine in news messages -- no
changes there. Handles and screen names are not OK in member-ID's because
they're much more permanent and visible from the outside."
Whew. I think that's much more accurate. A thousand pardons! (And thanks!)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > That *is* something deep to think about, wow.
> >
> > More than you think upto now I think..:-) What about profanity in other
> > languages than English? Lugnet is a multi national community. One • example: a
> > simple and innocent looking abbreviation "ats2", which could be both read • as
> > its spelling "atese iki" and as a combined word "atsiki". The second one
> > means exactly the reproductory extremity of a male horse, expressed in • the
> > most rude/slang way possible.
>
> Wow.
>
> Well, at least if someone uses "ats2", it'd have to be logically formed
> from their name, so it would be clear that they weren't just doing it to
> be rude/offensive.
If the individual would be from Turkey, the latter would be true, even if
his name would "ahmet tayfun sipahioglu", since it is a common joke..:-)
>
> > Another thing to consider: What about letters like ç and ö like in my
> > name?
>
> They're not a problem at all from an internal coding standpoint, but they
> don't work in URLs, so the letters have to be ASCII a-z only. Your best
> bet might be something like 'sgore'.
Oh, that old, boring "sgore" again..:-( What if could manage to make my
relaltives lego maniacs some day?..:-)
Sema Gore (sister)
Sema Gore (wife)
Senay gore (mother)
..heheh. most probably I would prefer selcukg (auczilla nick..:-)
Anyway, I could withstand it although I would not so happy (teyyareci is my
real life nick, although not used very very frequently). What about short
forms of names? for example "selo" is the short form of Selçuk. another gray
area, right?..:-)
>
> > They are already part of code page 437, but I know they could
> > cause some problem here or there.
>
> What is code page 437? Is that some Microshaft thing? (I seem to remember
> something like this back from my NT/army days.) The important thing, • really,
> is that ç and ö are part of ISO-8859-1 (a real standard), but not part of
> ASCII (another real standard). Microshaft code pages aren't real • standards.
>
I'm not very deep in the subject, but Is ASCII has 128 or 256 characters? If
second is true, code page 437 is the default codepage (US) for IBM
compatible PC's and exactly same as ASCII, and contains many specialized
characters like ç and ö. If ASCII has only 128 characters, then first 128
characters of the code page 437 exactly coincided with ASCII (as well as
other code pages since only differences could be found through latter 128
characters). Those are all from old days of MS/IBM-PC DOS era.
As far as I know, ISO 8859-1 is for western languages only, and the standard
that covers all the Turkish alphabet is ISO 8859-9 (according to Netscape
communicator)
>
> > And the most important, what about my nick "teyyareci". I've been using
> > it since I'm first started using Internet, and it has been a nick for
> > also long before my Internet life. You already mentioned some "special"
> > provisions to allow older users to continue their well known nicks, that
> > are not related to their names,
>
> No, that wasn't to give special treatment to anyone to use nicks unrelated
> to their names, it was citing examples of gray-area cases.
>
>
> > But how can you explain this to a new comer who also want to
> > use his beloved nick? "Hey, lamer. He was already here when you still
> > sitting on your mother's laptop. Don't ask this much lame questions
> > ever!.."...:-)
> > Selçuk
>
> LOL!
>
> Exactly -- that's why "seniority" only should count in the • first-come-first-
> serve sense, but not ever in a "truly special favors" sense.
>
> --Todd
:-D Member ID# could serve this well. In a science fiction novel that I've
read, smaller social security number (tattooed on peoples skin) means the
higher social carrier..:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> > > Another thing to consider: What about letters like ç and ö like in my
> > > name?
> >
> > They're not a problem at all from an internal coding standpoint, but they
> > don't work in URLs, so the letters have to be ASCII a-z only. Your best
> > bet might be something like 'sgore'.
>
> Oh, that old, boring "sgore" again..:-( What if could manage to make my
> relaltives lego maniacs some day?..:-)
>
> Sema Gore (sister)
> Sema Gore (wife)
> Senay gore (mother)
Wow, four names in the family that all start with "se" -- excellent!
Do your mother and sister have middle or other familiar names to
distinguish between them?
> ..heheh. most probably I would prefer selcukg (auczilla nick..:-)
Well, internally, there you're "selgore", but only I see that. Externally,
you're "Selçuk G". :-)
> Anyway, I could withstand it although I would not so happy (teyyareci is
> my real life nick, although not used very very frequently). What about
> short forms of names? for example "selo" is the short form of Selçuk.
> another gray area, right?..:-)
I think that's a gray area, yeah. Thanks for the additional gray-area
examples.
> > > They are already part of code page 437, but I know they could
> > > cause some problem here or there.
> >
> > What is code page 437? Is that some Microshaft thing? (I seem to
> > remember something like this back from my NT/army days.) The important
> > thing,really, is that ç and ö are part of ISO-8859-1 (a real standard),
> > but not part of ASCII (another real standard). Microshaft code pages
> > aren't real standards.
>
> I'm not very deep in the subject, but Is ASCII has 128 or 256 characters?
ASCII is 7-bit, and it's either 127 or 128 characters, I forget which.
> If second is true, code page 437 is the default codepage (US) for IBM
> compatible PC's and exactly same as ASCII, and contains many specialized
> characters like ç and ö. If ASCII has only 128 characters, then first 128
> characters of the code page 437 exactly coincided with ASCII (as well as
> other code pages since only differences could be found through latter 128
> characters). Those are all from old days of MS/IBM-PC DOS era.
>
> As far as I know, ISO 8859-1 is for western languages only, and the
> standard that covers all the Turkish alphabet is ISO 8859-9 (according
> to Netscape communicator)
Yeah, hopefully someday it'll all be obsoleted by Unicode, if Unicode works
out as perfectly as it was planned to. BTW, when you use ç and ö from the
ISO-8859-1 character set in posts, are those the accurate Turkish character
representations, just happening to coincide with western languages, or are
they just close approximations?
Anyway, URLs containing non-ASCII characters (and some ASCII characters too
of course, like + and % and space, etc.) have to be specially encoded. So
even if you had 'selçukg' as a member-ID and it appeared encoded in a URL
like so:
http://www.lugnet.com/people/sel%E7ukg/
I'm not even sure if %E7 always is assumed to decode to ç -- it *might*
depend on the particular language someone is running. Anyway, for a number
of reasons, the least of which is readability, it's good idea to avoid %'s
in URLs if at all possible, unless they're localized to one country (which
these aren't).
> :-D Member ID# could serve this well. In a science fiction novel that
> I've read, smaller social security number (tattooed on peoples skin)
> means the higher social carrier..:-)
Keep the gray-area examples coming! :) We get enough of those and ID#'s
will be the only logical choice.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > Sema Gore (sister)
> > Sema Gore (wife)
> > Senay gore (mother)
>
> Wow, four names in the family that all start with "se" -- excellent!
> Do your mother and sister have middle or other familiar names to
> distinguish between them?
Actually my sister's name is "Zeynep Sema" but she never used his initial
name, so when we visit parents all together, there is always a funy chaos
across the names..:-)
>
> Well, internally, there you're "selgore", but only I see that. Externally,
> you're "Selçuk G". :-)
I prefer using a first name dominated nick, since it's not a habit in Turkey
using family names to call someone. As far as I know, you Americans and many
Europeans use first names only through a small people of close friends and
relatives, and except that call each other by their family names, am I
wrong? Most probably because we had no family names before 1930, its not a
habit here. Besides, the Turkish correspondng words to "Mr." and "Mrs." are
"bey" or "hanim" respectively and thier use is like "Selcuk Bey" or "Sema
Hanim", not "Gore Bey" or "Gore Hanim"..:-)
>
>
> Yeah, hopefully someday it'll all be obsoleted by Unicode, if Unicode works
> out as perfectly as it was planned to. BTW, when you use ç and ö from the
> ISO-8859-1 character set in posts, are those the accurate Turkish character
> representations, just happening to coincide with western languages, or are
> they just close approximations?
No, they are exact. Actually, we were using arabic alphabet before the
alphabet revolution by Atatürk, 1932. The new alphabet introduced then of
course made up of mostly already present Latin alphabets. But since we
should have 29 letters (1) in our alphabet (we don't have x,w,q so we need 6
more comparing to English alphabet), some letters made up by the language
specialists of that time. Three of those, ü,ç,and ö are taken from other
available alphabets (ü and ö from German, and ç from some other western
language) and then three others are completely made up and specific to
Turkish alphabet, so I can't type them here...:-) I'm already familiar with
arabic alphabet at some extend, too, and clearly see the greatness behind
the transformaton. Just one move, and literacy rate rise to the 90%s by jet
speed just in several years, from shamefull 40%s. Atatürk was a great leader
anyway..:-)
>
> Keep the gray-area examples coming! :) We get enough of those and ID#'s
> will be the only logical choice.
>
> --Todd
Oh, no..I'll stop here. Even this message become truly off topic, so I shut
up...:-) Information exchange is good, but sometimes could be terribly
off-topic..Sorry about that..:-)
Selçuk
(1) In Turkish alphabet, every letter represents a unique sound. We don't
have any letter which sounds very different in relation to neighbouring
letters (consider "c" in "can", "chance" and "century").
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mike Stanley wrote:
> my friends call me Misha, a carryover from what my Russian instructors
> and fellow classmates called me at DLI while I was in the Army.
Wow! How was DLI? I almost went there. I blew the DLAB out of the
water (but I still don't know how...what a confusing experience that
was) but a clerical error at the MEPS in St. Louis screwed up when I
could start my enlistment and then I got a different life and never went
back.
"Two roads diverged..."
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Univeristies do the username made from name thing all the time. Maybe you could
look at some of those systems. Of course they all do it differently, but I'm so
dang used to pschemp, I would want to use that. It beats the schempppat I got at
another one.
Patricia Schempp
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Ben Roller writes:
> > > [...] That way we could all be given any old number and the
> > > part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure
> > > that systems like ebay have numbers, but heck if I know what my number
> > > is because I just use my username. [...]
> >
> > I've yet to see a username-system that (a) handles collisions in a
> > reasonable way if the usernames are system-assigned, or (b) doesn't lead
> > quickly to garbage if the usernames are user-chosen.
>
> Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Awright, maybe it's worth taking a major 180 here and
> taking a closer look at non-numeric member-id's (i.e., usernames).
>
> Personally, I think usernames are nothing but a major source of headaches
> once a user population grows above a certain point, but maybe together we
> can devise something that won't be too restrictive but also won't be too
> abuse-prone. Like I said, I've never seen a username-system that handles
> collisions reasonably or doesn't lead to garbage if users have full control
> over their username/member-ID. But I guess that's no reason to give up.
>
> Anyway, the basic idea behind member-ID's is this: For the foundations of
> unique member identities, each person needs a unique ID of some sort. That
> could be a simple number, or a sequence of letters, or a combination of
> letters and numbers, or whatever. The challenge is to choose a system which
> allows a certain amount of personal expression, but doesn't encourage (or
> hopefully even permit) crap. We don't want LUGNET to turn into another AOL
> (for example) in terms of usernames.
>
> The ID's need to be unique and permanent because they form the basis of,
> among other things, URLs which represent a person's homepage within the
> community, and tacit cognitive connections which build over time as people
> get to know one another. For example, someone who sees the letters "cjc"
> somewhere today is likely to think of Mike Stanley if they exchange email
> with him often. Or someone who sees the letters "moz" somewhere today is
> likely to think of Chris Moseley if they know him by that nickname.
>
> So the unique ID is a necessity from an internal mechanism point of view,
> but it's not something that can ever be totally hidden from view, because
> whatever form the ID's take (numeric or alphanumeric or whatever) the ID's
> must inevitably appear in URLs.
>
> Let's take a look at both ends of the spectrum and then a closer look at a
> few things in the middle of the spectrum. Perhaps something in the middle
> represents a reasonable compromise between the two extremes.
>
> At one end of the spectrum, there is a system which assigns simple counting
> numbers -- like 7, or 55, or 1234 -- on a first-come first-serve basis,
> starting at 1 and counting upward. I think this is the way ICQ works, and
> it's simple and effective.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, there is a system which allows people to
> choose whatever "screen name" or "handle" or "username" they please,
> provided that no one else has yet obtained that name. This is the way AOL
> works, and it's also simple and effective.
>
> However, both extremes have deep fundamental problems.
>
> At the purely numeric extreme (i.e., ICQ), there is no hint of who someone
> is just by their number. And even if you know someone by their number,
> numbers are typically relatively easy to forget -- especially when trying to
> keep a few dozen or hundred of them straight.
>
> At the ad-hoc alpha-numeric extreme (i.e., AOL), there is sometimes a decent
> hint at who someone is by their username/handle, but really only if they
> have chosen to use their real name, or if they have used a reasonable
> nickname that makes any sense. AOL-style names are surely more difficult to
> forget than numbers, but they are hideously prone to garbaging-up.
>
> Here are some examples of problems with the AOL approach. I don't know what
> the character-length-limit is for AOL screen names, but I think it's more
> than eight. However, even eight characters is plenty to represent anything
> from the childishly cutesy...
>
> acidburn, phyrefox, defcon5, neozero, immortal, genepool, pubert, etc.
>
> to the disgorgingly trite...
>
> k00l1, in10siv, l8ralg8r, 2cool4u, sk8rd00d, me2me2me, win95sux, faqewe,
> bumsnifr, ob1ken, ds9rulez, etc.
>
> to the potentially sexually, racially, or religiously offensive...
>
> hot4u, 6of9, mastrb8r, 13incher, gotohell, satan666, nigrhatr, killfags,
> etc.
>
> (The above names are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to actual screen
> names or handles is a coincidence.)
>
> Now, if people can specify whatever name they please, how can this type of
> garbage be prevented in a completely automated way? I'm not sure that
> it can. People are still infinitely more creative than machines. That
> means there has to be at least -some- set of restrictions, whether imposed
> via machine (automatic) or via human intervention (manual), in order to pass
> or fail each username request. Human intervention is not really a serious
> time issue, but it may potentially border on some form of censorship.
>
> One partial solution might be to disallow numbers altogether, or to disallow
> the use of numbers as letter-substitutes ("l8r", "k00l", "in10se", etc.),
> but still to allow things like "whg3" (that's one way to write William H.
> Gates III -- eek! :-). But I don't think that's a full solution.
>
> In the interests of diplomacy, certain character sequences such as "lego",
> for example, must be prevented, unless someone's actual real-life name
> actually contains those letters. (According to www.switchboard.com, there
> are more than 300 people in the U.S. with the last name Lego. There's even
> someone in California and someone in Oregon with the last name Lugnet. :-)
>
> So far so good? No...
>
> What if someone other than Tim Courtney or Brandon Grifford attempted to
> acquire the username of "zacktron"? How would something like that be
> detected and dealt with? Or what about someone other than Tom McDonald
> attempting to acquire the username of "radiotitan"? Or what about someone
> other than Simon Denscombe attempting to acquire the username of "carbon60"?
>
> Conclusion: It just isn't mechanically feasable to allow anywhich arbitrary
> username to be chosen.
>
> So what's the next best thing? Say, maybe something that involves someone's
> real-life name but still allows a modicum of flexibility and creativity?
>
> One thing might be to allow any sequence of letters taken in order from
> someone's full real-life name. For example, (let's use LarryP, because I
> don't think he'll mind), Larry could go for any of:
>
> lp, lar, larry, larryp, lpien, lpieniazek, etc.
>
> or he could simply use his initials (although I don't know what his middle
> initial is, so I can't put that one in the list). Let's see, what would I
> do? I'd probably go for something like one of:
>
> tsl, todd, toddl, tlehman, toddlehman, etc.
>
> and perhaps Suzanne would go for something like one of:
>
> suz, srich, suzanne, etc.
>
> So that actually seems like a modus vivendi to me. Sandra Linkletter of RTL
> could even keep her cool handle "slink".
>
> (What would YOU pick for your name?)
>
> Now, are there any loopholes or problems in this scheme?
>
> One potential problem is, ironically, three-letter nicknames (for example,
> "lar" as shown above). I believe there is actually a Larry A. Rosler in the
> computing community -- so not only might his familiar nickname also be
> "lar", but his initials are "lar". Once a username is chosen or assigned,
> it is permanent for lifetime, so LarryP wouldn't ever be able to sell his
> member-ID of "lar" to someone such as LarryR. That's one potential problem.
>
> Another potential problem is due to the permanence of the member ID's: if
> someone marries or divorces and changes their last name, and if they used
> their old last name in their member-ID and wanted to change it to use their
> new last name, then they're S.O.L.
>
> A third potential problem is much more complex and socio-psychological.
> Under the scheme described above, Larry Pieniazek could have "lar" and Paul
> Gyugyi could have "gyug", but Chris Moseley could not have "moz" and Joseph
> Gonzalez could not have "gonzo" (because of s=>z and a=>o). This would be
> unfortunate because all four of those nicknames are something those four
> people have used publicly, and all four of them are sense-making nicknames.
>
> OK, so if the rules were bent slightly so that Chris Moseley could have
> "moz" and Joseph Gonzalez could have "gonzo", then is that bending enough?
> What other near-border cases are there?
>
> Of course it makes sense that Roberts could always be Robs or Bobs;
> Jennifers could always be Jennys or Jens; Michaels could be Mikes; Anthonys
> could be Tonys or Ants; Fredriks could be Freds or Riks; and Williams could
> be Wills or Bills, etc.
>
> Ahem -- say again on that last one? What about someone named William
> Williamson? Could he go by "billbill"? (I saw a "billbill" on the net
> once.) If so, could John Williams go by "johnbill" or would he have to use
> "johnwill" or some other thing?
>
> More food for thought:
>
> Should Asrun Kristmundsdottir be permitted the member-ID of "kristmas"?
> Should Nick Holdbrooks be permitted the member-ID of "ickna" (I assume
> that's Piglatin for "Nick")? Should Richard Mussler-Wright (more famously
> known as "Weird Richard") be permitted the member-ID of "weirdrichard"?
> Should Ed Jones (famously known as Ed Boxer) be permitted the member-ID of
> "edboxer"? Should David K.Z. Harris be permitted the member-ID of "zonker"?
> The list of borderline cases goes on and on...
>
> (I have opinions on all of the above, but I'll keep them to myself for the
> time being...)
>
> Some interesting three-letter-initial combintations, BTW: Alan B. Clegg
> could be "abc"; Allan R. Martin could be "arm"; and Sean O'Brien could be
> "sob". Those are all kind of interesting. :)
>
> Anyway, I think something like this (above) -- a scheme which is still
> highly objective, and fair, and only a very tiny bit subjective -- would
> give a large amount of flexibility, and a lot of understandability and
> memorability, and yet still avoid the garbage types of names that can crop
> up in an unregulated system -- all without doing anything that could be
> construed as censorship. It's true that some people would definitely not
> get the member-ID that they would most favorably desire, but in any system
> -- even an unregulated one such as AOL's -- there's never such a guarantee
> because someone could have taken your favorite name before you.
>
> Well, that's probably enough brain-dumping for now...
>
> [followups to lugnet.admin.general]
>
> --Todd
>
> p.s. To anyone who reads this post and feels I've really gone out to the
> looney farm this time, well, all I can say is that I actually find this
> topic endlessly fascinating! :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
How about people just use whatever they have been called in the past? As for
new members and garbage names, you could have a submit area that sends chosen
names to a special LUGNET email, where they then could be manually read, and
the garbage names could be denied memberships until they change their name to
an acceptable one. A little redundant, I know, but I am just throwing in my two
cents..
Greg (or maybe Mmaje? [RTL name])
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/
In lugnet.admin.general, Patricia Schempp writes:
> Univeristies do the username made from name thing all the time. Maybe you could
> look at some of those systems. Of course they all do it differently, but I'm so
> dang used to pschemp, I would want to use that. It beats the schempppat I got at
> another one.
>
> Patricia Schempp
>
> Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.admin.general, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Ben Roller writes:
> > > > [...] That way we could all be given any old number and the
> > > > part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure
> > > > that systems like ebay have numbers, but heck if I know what my number
> > > > is because I just use my username. [...]
> > >
> > > I've yet to see a username-system that (a) handles collisions in a
> > > reasonable way if the usernames are system-assigned, or (b) doesn't lead
> > > quickly to garbage if the usernames are user-chosen.
> >
> > Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Awright, maybe it's worth taking a major 180 here and
> > taking a closer look at non-numeric member-id's (i.e., usernames).
> >
> > Personally, I think usernames are nothing but a major source of headaches
> > once a user population grows above a certain point, but maybe together we
> > can devise something that won't be too restrictive but also won't be too
> > abuse-prone. Like I said, I've never seen a username-system that handles
> > collisions reasonably or doesn't lead to garbage if users have full control
> > over their username/member-ID. But I guess that's no reason to give up.
> >
> > Anyway, the basic idea behind member-ID's is this: For the foundations of
> > unique member identities, each person needs a unique ID of some sort. That
> > could be a simple number, or a sequence of letters, or a combination of
> > letters and numbers, or whatever. The challenge is to choose a system which
> > allows a certain amount of personal expression, but doesn't encourage (or
> > hopefully even permit) crap. We don't want LUGNET to turn into another AOL
> > (for example) in terms of usernames.
> >
> > The ID's need to be unique and permanent because they form the basis of,
> > among other things, URLs which represent a person's homepage within the
> > community, and tacit cognitive connections which build over time as people
> > get to know one another. For example, someone who sees the letters "cjc"
> > somewhere today is likely to think of Mike Stanley if they exchange email
> > with him often. Or someone who sees the letters "moz" somewhere today is
> > likely to think of Chris Moseley if they know him by that nickname.
> >
> > So the unique ID is a necessity from an internal mechanism point of view,
> > but it's not something that can ever be totally hidden from view, because
> > whatever form the ID's take (numeric or alphanumeric or whatever) the ID's
> > must inevitably appear in URLs.
> >
> > Let's take a look at both ends of the spectrum and then a closer look at a
> > few things in the middle of the spectrum. Perhaps something in the middle
> > represents a reasonable compromise between the two extremes.
> >
> > At one end of the spectrum, there is a system which assigns simple counting
> > numbers -- like 7, or 55, or 1234 -- on a first-come first-serve basis,
> > starting at 1 and counting upward. I think this is the way ICQ works, and
> > it's simple and effective.
> >
> > At the other end of the spectrum, there is a system which allows people to
> > choose whatever "screen name" or "handle" or "username" they please,
> > provided that no one else has yet obtained that name. This is the way AOL
> > works, and it's also simple and effective.
> >
> > However, both extremes have deep fundamental problems.
> >
> > At the purely numeric extreme (i.e., ICQ), there is no hint of who someone
> > is just by their number. And even if you know someone by their number,
> > numbers are typically relatively easy to forget -- especially when trying to
> > keep a few dozen or hundred of them straight.
> >
> > At the ad-hoc alpha-numeric extreme (i.e., AOL), there is sometimes a decent
> > hint at who someone is by their username/handle, but really only if they
> > have chosen to use their real name, or if they have used a reasonable
> > nickname that makes any sense. AOL-style names are surely more difficult to
> > forget than numbers, but they are hideously prone to garbaging-up.
> >
> > Here are some examples of problems with the AOL approach. I don't know what
> > the character-length-limit is for AOL screen names, but I think it's more
> > than eight. However, even eight characters is plenty to represent anything
> > from the childishly cutesy...
> >
> > acidburn, phyrefox, defcon5, neozero, immortal, genepool, pubert, etc.
> >
> > to the disgorgingly trite...
> >
> > k00l1, in10siv, l8ralg8r, 2cool4u, sk8rd00d, me2me2me, win95sux, faqewe,
> > bumsnifr, ob1ken, ds9rulez, etc.
> >
> > to the potentially sexually, racially, or religiously offensive...
> >
> > hot4u, 6of9, mastrb8r, 13incher, gotohell, satan666, nigrhatr, killfags,
> > etc.
> >
> > (The above names are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to actual screen
> > names or handles is a coincidence.)
> >
> > Now, if people can specify whatever name they please, how can this type of
> > garbage be prevented in a completely automated way? I'm not sure that
> > it can. People are still infinitely more creative than machines. That
> > means there has to be at least -some- set of restrictions, whether imposed
> > via machine (automatic) or via human intervention (manual), in order to pass
> > or fail each username request. Human intervention is not really a serious
> > time issue, but it may potentially border on some form of censorship.
> >
> > One partial solution might be to disallow numbers altogether, or to disallow
> > the use of numbers as letter-substitutes ("l8r", "k00l", "in10se", etc.),
> > but still to allow things like "whg3" (that's one way to write William H.
> > Gates III -- eek! :-). But I don't think that's a full solution.
> >
> > In the interests of diplomacy, certain character sequences such as "lego",
> > for example, must be prevented, unless someone's actual real-life name
> > actually contains those letters. (According to www.switchboard.com, there
> > are more than 300 people in the U.S. with the last name Lego. There's even
> > someone in California and someone in Oregon with the last name Lugnet. :-)
> >
> > So far so good? No...
> >
> > What if someone other than Tim Courtney or Brandon Grifford attempted to
> > acquire the username of "zacktron"? How would something like that be
> > detected and dealt with? Or what about someone other than Tom McDonald
> > attempting to acquire the username of "radiotitan"? Or what about someone
> > other than Simon Denscombe attempting to acquire the username of "carbon60"?
> >
> > Conclusion: It just isn't mechanically feasable to allow anywhich arbitrary
> > username to be chosen.
> >
> > So what's the next best thing? Say, maybe something that involves someone's
> > real-life name but still allows a modicum of flexibility and creativity?
> >
> > One thing might be to allow any sequence of letters taken in order from
> > someone's full real-life name. For example, (let's use LarryP, because I
> > don't think he'll mind), Larry could go for any of:
> >
> > lp, lar, larry, larryp, lpien, lpieniazek, etc.
> >
> > or he could simply use his initials (although I don't know what his middle
> > initial is, so I can't put that one in the list). Let's see, what would I
> > do? I'd probably go for something like one of:
> >
> > tsl, todd, toddl, tlehman, toddlehman, etc.
> >
> > and perhaps Suzanne would go for something like one of:
> >
> > suz, srich, suzanne, etc.
> >
> > So that actually seems like a modus vivendi to me. Sandra Linkletter of RTL
> > could even keep her cool handle "slink".
> >
> > (What would YOU pick for your name?)
> >
> > Now, are there any loopholes or problems in this scheme?
> >
> > One potential problem is, ironically, three-letter nicknames (for example,
> > "lar" as shown above). I believe there is actually a Larry A. Rosler in the
> > computing community -- so not only might his familiar nickname also be
> > "lar", but his initials are "lar". Once a username is chosen or assigned,
> > it is permanent for lifetime, so LarryP wouldn't ever be able to sell his
> > member-ID of "lar" to someone such as LarryR. That's one potential problem.
> >
> > Another potential problem is due to the permanence of the member ID's: if
> > someone marries or divorces and changes their last name, and if they used
> > their old last name in their member-ID and wanted to change it to use their
> > new last name, then they're S.O.L.
> >
> > A third potential problem is much more complex and socio-psychological.
> > Under the scheme described above, Larry Pieniazek could have "lar" and Paul
> > Gyugyi could have "gyug", but Chris Moseley could not have "moz" and Joseph
> > Gonzalez could not have "gonzo" (because of s=>z and a=>o). This would be
> > unfortunate because all four of those nicknames are something those four
> > people have used publicly, and all four of them are sense-making nicknames.
> >
> > OK, so if the rules were bent slightly so that Chris Moseley could have
> > "moz" and Joseph Gonzalez could have "gonzo", then is that bending enough?
> > What other near-border cases are there?
> >
> > Of course it makes sense that Roberts could always be Robs or Bobs;
> > Jennifers could always be Jennys or Jens; Michaels could be Mikes; Anthonys
> > could be Tonys or Ants; Fredriks could be Freds or Riks; and Williams could
> > be Wills or Bills, etc.
> >
> > Ahem -- say again on that last one? What about someone named William
> > Williamson? Could he go by "billbill"? (I saw a "billbill" on the net
> > once.) If so, could John Williams go by "johnbill" or would he have to use
> > "johnwill" or some other thing?
> >
> > More food for thought:
> >
> > Should Asrun Kristmundsdottir be permitted the member-ID of "kristmas"?
> > Should Nick Holdbrooks be permitted the member-ID of "ickna" (I assume
> > that's Piglatin for "Nick")? Should Richard Mussler-Wright (more famously
> > known as "Weird Richard") be permitted the member-ID of "weirdrichard"?
> > Should Ed Jones (famously known as Ed Boxer) be permitted the member-ID of
> > "edboxer"? Should David K.Z. Harris be permitted the member-ID of "zonker"?
> > The list of borderline cases goes on and on...
> >
> > (I have opinions on all of the above, but I'll keep them to myself for the
> > time being...)
> >
> > Some interesting three-letter-initial combintations, BTW: Alan B. Clegg
> > could be "abc"; Allan R. Martin could be "arm"; and Sean O'Brien could be
> > "sob". Those are all kind of interesting. :)
> >
> > Anyway, I think something like this (above) -- a scheme which is still
> > highly objective, and fair, and only a very tiny bit subjective -- would
> > give a large amount of flexibility, and a lot of understandability and
> > memorability, and yet still avoid the garbage types of names that can crop
> > up in an unregulated system -- all without doing anything that could be
> > construed as censorship. It's true that some people would definitely not
> > get the member-ID that they would most favorably desire, but in any system
> > -- even an unregulated one such as AOL's -- there's never such a guarantee
> > because someone could have taken your favorite name before you.
> >
> > Well, that's probably enough brain-dumping for now...
> >
> > [followups to lugnet.admin.general]
> >
> > --Todd
> >
> > p.s. To anyone who reads this post and feels I've really gone out to the
> > looney farm this time, well, all I can say is that I actually find this
> > topic endlessly fascinating! :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> How about people just use whatever they have been called in the past? As for
> new members and garbage names, you could have a submit area that sends chosen
> names to a special LUGNET email, where they then could be manually read, and
> the garbage names could be denied memberships until they change their name to
> an acceptable one. A little redundant, I know, but I am just throwing in my two
> cents..
That was a thought, but think about it from the censorship standpoint:
On the legal side, when you start trying to filter out things that are
offensive or vulgar or profane, you open yourself up to more scrutiny if you
then accidentally miss something and it passes through and someone really
freaks out. And I believe you're at risk even if you don't advertise that
you're censoring (or keeping things 'clean'). That's an important concern.
On the social side, and this is probably the bigger concern, there are all
sorts of possible usernames that walk the gray area between what would pass
and what would fail. Certainly there are things that would obviously fail
that weren't offensive, and things that would obviously pass that weren't
offensive, but things aren't always black and white. When you draw the line
(and it might even drift over time) and consider all of the gray-area cases,
some people are bound to get very upset if their username isn't passed,
especially if someone with a very similar name was passed and they were
failed (it might have been on purpose for very subtle reasons or it might
simply have been accidental, who knows). The gray area cases are 100%
subjective (kind of by definition of their being gray), and this would bring
things into a very uncomfortable territory.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> > How about people just use whatever they have been called in the past? As for
> > new members and garbage names, you could have a submit area that sends chosen
> > names to a special LUGNET email, where they then could be manually read, and
> > the garbage names could be denied memberships until they change their name to
> > an acceptable one. A little redundant, I know, but I am just throwing in my two
> > cents..
>
> That was a thought, but think about it from the censorship standpoint:
>
> On the legal side, when you start trying to filter out things that are
> offensive or vulgar or profane, you open yourself up to more scrutiny if you
> then accidentally miss something and it passes through and someone really
> freaks out. And I believe you're at risk even if you don't advertise that
> you're censoring (or keeping things 'clean'). That's an important concern.
>
> On the social side, and this is probably the bigger concern, there are all
> sorts of possible usernames that walk the gray area between what would pass
> and what would fail. Certainly there are things that would obviously fail
> that weren't offensive, and things that would obviously pass that weren't
> offensive, but things aren't always black and white. When you draw the line
> (and it might even drift over time) and consider all of the gray-area cases,
> some people are bound to get very upset if their username isn't passed,
> especially if someone with a very similar name was passed and they were
> failed (it might have been on purpose for very subtle reasons or it might
> simply have been accidental, who knows). The gray area cases are 100%
> subjective (kind of by definition of their being gray), and this would bring
> things into a very uncomfortable territory.
>
> --Todd
If you look at this situation from how it exists already, you will find that
99% of the internet's Lego community are civilized adults, the rest being
civilized teenagers or whatever, so you don't really have to worry about "gray
areas," at least not how I look at it. Sure, some people out there may be loud
and annoying, but they aren't offensive or vulgar.
Greg
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> If you look at this situation from how it exists already, you will find that
Oh, believe me, I *have* looked at it...! :-) Been seriously looking at
this on and off for years...
> 99% of the internet's Lego community are civilized adults, the rest being
> civilized teenagers or whatever, so you don't really have to worry about "gray
> areas," at least not how I look at it. Sure, some people out there may be loud
> and annoying, but they aren't offensive or vulgar.
The gray areas I'm thinking of aren't so much the offensive or vulgar things
(although I'm sure there are some things which are both offensive and gray,
i.e. mildly offensive), but more so the non-offensive childish and cutesy
things, which set a tone inconsistent with the more serious and adult nature
of things here. Some examples again of cutesy screen names:
acidburn, phyrefox, defcon5, neozero, immortal, genepool, pubert, etc.
Now those certainly aren't "gray" to me -- they're way out there in la-la
land in my book, as they have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's real
name. (Barf.) But starting from there and going more toward nicknames,
let's look at some actual gray examples:
We covered "moz" and "cogs" earlier, so forget those; I don't really think
those are too gray (anyone?) and would be perfectly happy seeing those
assigned to Chris Moseley and Aaron Coghill, for example. And except for
the letter change (s to z), Moz is just like Woz (Steve Wozniak's famous
nickname) as Moz is based quite directly on Chris Moseley's name.
Anyway, here are some examples that do seem gray to me and may need careful
attention...(these have all been disclosed publicly on LUGNET by their
owners):
"R2" <=> Rose Regner
"Ickna" <=> Nick Holdbrooks
"Misha" <=> Mike Stanley
"Binky" <=> Neil Ford
"topher" <=> Chris Adler
"Mookie" <=> Tamy Teed
"Zonker" <=> David K. Z. Harris
"Beaker" <=> James Baker
"Adamski" <=> Adam McDonagh
"dulcaoin" <=> Joshua Delahunty
"Ed Boxer" <=> Ed Jones
"Weird Richard" <=> Richard Mussler-Wright
Some of these are naturally more gray than others. Take Mike's case, for
example. He could probably give some good proof that his nickname is based
on his real name, and that it makes sense, and isn't childish, and isn't a
"handle" or a "screen name." If it's what people actually call him in
spoken real-life, and if, for him, it's an actual 'nother name, then that's
probably not too gray after all, compared to some of the others. Joshua's
handle is very interesting too, but he can talk about it if he wants. Some
of the others?-- well, for all we know, David Harris's second middle name
might actually be Zonker. And "Beaker" is an obvious bastardization of
Baker, and "topher" is an obvious bastardization of Christopher. Whether
any of the above would/could/should "pass" is open to debate.
Tamy's case is a particularly gray one...unless her middle name or something
like that starts with an M, or there is some other deep meaning in the name.
For example, I once worked with a guy named John Muchow. He's one of the
friendliest guys in the world, and has a great sense of humor, so he didn't
mind us making up an endearing nickname for him (which he also happened to
like and take as his own over time). The history of it: His last name is
pronounced MUHK-ow, but when he first started on the job, we didn't know
that; so we all assumed it was MOO-kow. That quickly somehow mutated into
"Mookie" and stuck for years. The funny thing is, in high school no one
ever called him Mookie because everyone already knew how to pronounce his
name, so it never led down that path.
Anyway, so that's an example of a nickname that derives from someone's real
name. We'd have to know more about Tamy's history to know whether her
"Mookie" handle derives from her real name or from something else. So that
makes that one a fairly gray area. That's another problem with nicknames of
that particular type, BTW -- they're always likely to be in use by several
different people simultaneously, sometimes even the opposite biological
gender.
Now here are some other examples -- things that _don't_ seem gray to me --
in terms of member-ID's and in the scheme describe in the previous post,
they all clearly fall on the "fail" side of things in my mind... (all of
these associations have also been disclosed publicly on LUGNET by their
owners):
"Rufus T. Falkenstein" <=> Dietmar Stüver
"Perhaps a Princess" <=> Sarah Heacock
"Full Metal Monty" <=> Greg Cont
"Lord Insanity" <=> Mike Petrucelli
"Mirror Spock" <=> Kai-Arne Reiter
"OptimusPrime" <=> Alex Sack
"Mike Fusion" <=> Michael Nickasch
"Green Alien" <=> Jorge Fernandez
"GitD_Ghost" <=> Frank Athens
"GearMonkey" <=> Robert Eddings
"hansolo843" <=> Danny Lynam
"legomenace" <=> Charles Spindell
"TooMuchDew" <=> William Toenjes
"The Undead" <=> Scott Javoroski
"NumberSix" <=> Colin Bell
"Kirk Unit" <=> Kirk Houser
"Carbon 60" <=> Simon Denscombe
"citrusx__" <=> Greg Majewski
"RoninSFX" <=> Peter Abrahamson
"Nephilim" <=> Jeff Thompson
"Dengar98" <=> Pearson Castner
"Lorbaat" <=> Eric Joslin
"HTMLPro" <=> Chris Alas
"Gemlord" <=> Chris Thompson
"MadMax" <=> Mark Rideout
"Baylit" <=> Jon Kozan
"Izzy98" <=> Israel Alanis
"ExitG" <=> Carrie Whitcher
"Codex" <=> Kevin Calman
"tanis" <=> Michael Cortez
"quozl" <=> Jonathan Nichol
"Eggy" <=> Tyler Harms
"Onyx" <=> Jeff Boen
"Wydd" <=> Dan Solum
"Vega" <=> Selvi Francesco
"Ice" <=> Mark Koeberl
"TFM" <=> Dean Husby
Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all *certainly*
continue to use these "handles" as they currently do in the newsgroups --
we're not talking here about changing anything anything -- just about how to
move forward.
To create member-ID's with pure "handles" or "screen names" like that is to
start down the AOL path (see previous post). So this last group wouldn't
pass (not that it necessarily should -- handles are *far* more capricious
than real-life names).
If it turns out that people are going to be *really* upset that they can't
necessarily use their traditional favorite "handle" or "screen name" or
alias as their LUGNET member-ID, then using purely numbers as member-ID's is
probably the best all-around approach, since there's no way for anyone to
get upset at those (is there?). On the other hand, if a few people do get
really upset with the scheme outlined above, then that's probably OK if 98%
or 99% of everyone else is OK with it.
The whole thing is a compromise, after all.
BTW, sometimes people have last names that appear on the surface to be
made-up, but are actually their real-life name. Consider Tané Tachyon of
Tachyon Labs, for example... A "tachyon" particle is something made-up for
Star Trek, but Tachyon actually her real last name. Isn't that cool? :-)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> > If you look at this situation from how it exists already, you will find that
>
> Oh, believe me, I *have* looked at it...! :-) Been seriously looking at
> this on and off for years...
>
>
> > 99% of the internet's Lego community are civilized adults, the rest being
> > civilized teenagers or whatever, so you don't really have to worry about "gray
> > areas," at least not how I look at it. Sure, some people out there may be loud
> > and annoying, but they aren't offensive or vulgar.
>
> The gray areas I'm thinking of aren't so much the offensive or vulgar things
> (although I'm sure there are some things which are both offensive and gray,
> i.e. mildly offensive), but more so the non-offensive childish and cutesy
> things, which set a tone inconsistent with the more serious and adult nature
> of things here. Some examples again of cutesy screen names:
>
> acidburn, phyrefox, defcon5, neozero, immortal, genepool, pubert, etc.
>
> Now those certainly aren't "gray" to me -- they're way out there in la-la
> land in my book, as they have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's real
> name. (Barf.) But starting from there and going more toward nicknames,
> let's look at some actual gray examples:
>
> We covered "moz" and "cogs" earlier, so forget those; I don't really think
> those are too gray (anyone?) and would be perfectly happy seeing those
> assigned to Chris Moseley and Aaron Coghill, for example. And except for
> the letter change (s to z), Moz is just like Woz (Steve Wozniak's famous
> nickname) as Moz is based quite directly on Chris Moseley's name.
>
> Anyway, here are some examples that do seem gray to me and may need careful
> attention...(these have all been disclosed publicly on LUGNET by their
> owners):
>
> "R2" <=> Rose Regner
> "Ickna" <=> Nick Holdbrooks
> "Misha" <=> Mike Stanley
> "Binky" <=> Neil Ford
> "topher" <=> Chris Adler
> "Mookie" <=> Tamy Teed
> "Zonker" <=> David K. Z. Harris
> "Beaker" <=> James Baker
> "Adamski" <=> Adam McDonagh
> "dulcaoin" <=> Joshua Delahunty
> "Ed Boxer" <=> Ed Jones
> "Weird Richard" <=> Richard Mussler-Wright
>
> Some of these are naturally more gray than others. Take Mike's case, for
> example. He could probably give some good proof that his nickname is based
> on his real name, and that it makes sense, and isn't childish, and isn't a
> "handle" or a "screen name." If it's what people actually call him in
> spoken real-life, and if, for him, it's an actual 'nother name, then that's
> probably not too gray after all, compared to some of the others. Joshua's
> handle is very interesting too, but he can talk about it if he wants. Some
> of the others?-- well, for all we know, David Harris's second middle name
> might actually be Zonker. And "Beaker" is an obvious bastardization of
> Baker, and "topher" is an obvious bastardization of Christopher. Whether
> any of the above would/could/should "pass" is open to debate.
>
> Tamy's case is a particularly gray one...unless her middle name or something
> like that starts with an M, or there is some other deep meaning in the name.
> For example, I once worked with a guy named John Muchow. He's one of the
> friendliest guys in the world, and has a great sense of humor, so he didn't
> mind us making up an endearing nickname for him (which he also happened to
> like and take as his own over time). The history of it: His last name is
> pronounced MUHK-ow, but when he first started on the job, we didn't know
> that; so we all assumed it was MOO-kow. That quickly somehow mutated into
> "Mookie" and stuck for years. The funny thing is, in high school no one
> ever called him Mookie because everyone already knew how to pronounce his
> name, so it never led down that path.
>
> Anyway, so that's an example of a nickname that derives from someone's real
> name. We'd have to know more about Tamy's history to know whether her
> "Mookie" handle derives from her real name or from something else. So that
> makes that one a fairly gray area. That's another problem with nicknames of
> that particular type, BTW -- they're always likely to be in use by several
> different people simultaneously, sometimes even the opposite biological
> gender.
>
> Now here are some other examples -- things that _don't_ seem gray to me --
> in terms of member-ID's and in the scheme describe in the previous post,
> they all clearly fall on the "fail" side of things in my mind... (all of
> these associations have also been disclosed publicly on LUGNET by their
> owners):
>
> "Rufus T. Falkenstein" <=> Dietmar Stüver
> "Perhaps a Princess" <=> Sarah Heacock
> "Full Metal Monty" <=> Greg Cont
> "Lord Insanity" <=> Mike Petrucelli
> "Mirror Spock" <=> Kai-Arne Reiter
> "OptimusPrime" <=> Alex Sack
> "Mike Fusion" <=> Michael Nickasch
> "Green Alien" <=> Jorge Fernandez
> "GitD_Ghost" <=> Frank Athens
> "GearMonkey" <=> Robert Eddings
> "hansolo843" <=> Danny Lynam
> "legomenace" <=> Charles Spindell
> "TooMuchDew" <=> William Toenjes
> "The Undead" <=> Scott Javoroski
> "NumberSix" <=> Colin Bell
> "Kirk Unit" <=> Kirk Houser
> "Carbon 60" <=> Simon Denscombe
> "citrusx__" <=> Greg Majewski
Oh! Oh! I can explain this one! My last name is pronounced muh-JEH-skee, but
people always say muh-JOOS-kee, which led to the nickname Juice for me. Also,
my favorite color is orange which led some people to call me Orange Juice,
which let to Citrus somehow. When I registered in Yahoo!, the name Citrus was
already taken, so I have been using CitrusX for about three years, and that's
what the internet's non-Lego community has called me... Oh well, this may be
irrelivant (sp?) because I am planning on using my RTL alias of Mmaje if I
join. I do hope that everyone can see where I got that one..
Greg
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/
> "RoninSFX" <=> Peter Abrahamson
> "Nephilim" <=> Jeff Thompson
> "Dengar98" <=> Pearson Castner
> "Lorbaat" <=> Eric Joslin
> "HTMLPro" <=> Chris Alas
> "Gemlord" <=> Chris Thompson
> "MadMax" <=> Mark Rideout
> "Baylit" <=> Jon Kozan
> "Izzy98" <=> Israel Alanis
> "ExitG" <=> Carrie Whitcher
> "Codex" <=> Kevin Calman
> "tanis" <=> Michael Cortez
> "quozl" <=> Jonathan Nichol
> "Eggy" <=> Tyler Harms
> "Onyx" <=> Jeff Boen
> "Wydd" <=> Dan Solum
> "Vega" <=> Selvi Francesco
> "Ice" <=> Mark Koeberl
> "TFM" <=> Dean Husby
>
> Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all *certainly*
> continue to use these "handles" as they currently do in the newsgroups --
> we're not talking here about changing anything anything -- just about how to
> move forward.
>
> To create member-ID's with pure "handles" or "screen names" like that is to
> start down the AOL path (see previous post). So this last group wouldn't
> pass (not that it necessarily should -- handles are *far* more capricious
> than real-life names).
>
> If it turns out that people are going to be *really* upset that they can't
> necessarily use their traditional favorite "handle" or "screen name" or
> alias as their LUGNET member-ID, then using purely numbers as member-ID's is
> probably the best all-around approach, since there's no way for anyone to
> get upset at those (is there?). On the other hand, if a few people do get
> really upset with the scheme outlined above, then that's probably OK if 98%
> or 99% of everyone else is OK with it.
>
> The whole thing is a compromise, after all.
>
> BTW, sometimes people have last names that appear on the surface to be
> made-up, but are actually their real-life name. Consider Tané Tachyon of
> Tachyon Labs, for example... A "tachyon" particle is something made-up for
> Star Trek, but Tachyon actually her real last name. Isn't that cool? :-)
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > "citrusx__" <=> Greg Majewski
>
> Oh! Oh! I can explain this one! My last name is pronounced muh-JEH-skee, but
> people always say muh-JOOS-kee, which led to the nickname Juice for me. Also,
> my favorite color is orange which led some people to call me Orange Juice,
> which let to Citrus somehow. When I registered in Yahoo!, the name Citrus was
> already taken, so I have been using CitrusX for about three years, and that's
> what the internet's non-Lego community has called me...
Hey, that's a pretty great story! It's always fun to hear how nicknames
come about.
> Oh well, this may be
> irrelivant (sp?) because I am planning on using my RTL alias of Mmaje if I
> join. I do hope that everyone can see where I got that one..
Well, keep in mind, the goal here is to discourage (in a mechanical way)
general "aliases" or "handles" or "screen names." You probably wouldn't be
able to use "mmaje" (certainly not "Mmaje" since the ID's will be all
lowercase) because your first name starts with G, not M. Out of curiosity,
where did the double-M come from? Is Greg your middle name, with your real
first name starting with M?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Greg Majewski" <citrusx__@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > [...]
> > > "citrusx__" <=> Greg Majewski
> >
> > Oh! Oh! I can explain this one! My last name is pronounced muh-JEH-skee, but
> > people always say muh-JOOS-kee, which led to the nickname Juice for me. Also,
> > my favorite color is orange which led some people to call me Orange Juice,
> > which let to Citrus somehow. When I registered in Yahoo!, the name Citrus was
> > already taken, so I have been using CitrusX for about three years, and that's
> > what the internet's non-Lego community has called me...
>
> Hey, that's a pretty great story! It's always fun to hear how nicknames
> come about.
>
>
> > Oh well, this may be
> > irrelivant (sp?) because I am planning on using my RTL alias of Mmaje if I
> > join. I do hope that everyone can see where I got that one..
>
> Well, keep in mind, the goal here is to discourage (in a mechanical way)
> general "aliases" or "handles" or "screen names." You probably wouldn't be
> able to use "mmaje" (certainly not "Mmaje" since the ID's will be all
> lowercase) because your first name starts with G, not M. Out of curiosity,
> where did the double-M come from? Is Greg your middle name, with your real
> first name starting with M?
>
> --Todd
No, my father's first name is Michael and he is the one who registered our
internet service. With my service, you can only have one "name," so it has
always been Mmaje for me until I registered with Yahoo!, but even then when I
posted to RTL, it still showed Mmaje as posting, and not Greg Majewski. So if I
register it will have to be something totally new and unused by me before since
neither of those names will work now.
Greg
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
This isn't a complaint, just a suggestion. If you're going to try to spell
phonetics you should adopt a technically precise notation. For example, you
said:
> [...] I once worked with a guy named John Muchow. [...]
> His last name is pronounced MUHK-ow, but when he first started on the
> job [...] we all assumed it was MOO-kow. That quickly somehow mutated
> into "Mookie" and stuck for years. [...]
It's not at all clear whether you intend your syllable "MUHK" to rhyme with
"book" or with "fluke" (you didn't mean "muck" because then you would have just
typed "MUCK"). Rhyme with "fluke" seemed most likely, until I got to "MOO-kow"
and got confused. Perhaps you're trying to point out the placement of the "k".
No, that can't be -- you'd have to introduce an artificial glottal stop to
force the "k" into being part of the first syllable! Hmmm...
You ran into a similar problem in your FAQ answer:
http://www.lugnet.com/faq/?n=640
where you try to explain how to pronounce "LUGNET". You made the claim that
"lug nut" and "dragnet" are pronounced with equal emphasis on both
words/syllables. Not true -- most speakers accent "dragnet" and "lug nut" on
the first word/syllable.
Anyway, if you want something better, check the simplified English SAMPA code,
described on my web page:
http://www.mrob.com/sampa.html
and a more authoritative source:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm
Examples: "moo-cow" would be /mu:" kaU/ and "LUGNET" is /lVg" net/.
- Robert Munafo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctech.com> writes:
> [...]
> Anyway, if you want something better, check the simplified English SAMPA code,
> described on my web page:
>
> http://www.mrob.com/sampa.html
>
> and a more authoritative source:
>
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm
>
> Examples: "moo-cow" would be /mu:" kaU/ and "LUGNET" is /lVg" net/.
Excellent! OK, by SAMPA, it would yup definitely be /lVg" net/ (thanks!).
(And, BTW, I had heard of a "glottal stop" before, but I never knew there
was such a thing as a "nasal sonorant" or a "bilabial fricative"! I'm
thinkin' TomMcD and JeremyS will be themselves a fine time checking this
SAMPA stuff out. :-)
--Todd
p.s. Hey, so SAMPA is something that anyone can use to say how their name
is pronounced too then, eh? Do you pronounce Munafo as /m@ nQ" f@U%/?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> [...]
> http://www.mrob.com/sampa.html
> [...]
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/home.htm
> [...]
> I never knew there was such a thing as a "nasal sonorant" or a
> "bilabial fricative"! I'm thinkin' TomMcD and JeremyS will be
> themselves a fine time checking this SAMPA stuff out. :-)
I don't actually know a sonorant from a fricative either, aside from what I can
figure out by looking at the examples. But if Tom and Jeremy are into
linguistics they probably already know more about it than we do {-;
> p.s. Hey, so SAMPA is something that anyone can use to say how their name
> is pronounced too then, eh?
You can use it if you give a reference. I don't think many people use SAMPA yet
so it's good to point to a description. And, yes, it works well for telling
English speakers how to pronounce names. As you can see, the phoneme set
includes a fairly complete set of sounds, like /2/, /x/, /Y/, and /C/ that
aren't native to English. And if a sound doesn't have a symbol, then you
probably won't get an English speaker to pronounce it accurately anyway.
> Do you pronounce Munafo as /m@ nQ" f@U%/?
Close -- it's /mu: nQ" f@U%/. The name is of eastern Mediterranean origin, as
you probably guessed, otherwise you would have said /mV" n@% f@U/ or something
like that.
I'll sign my name by demonstrating that I drop the 't':
- /rQ" b@r? mu: nQ" f@U%/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Robert Munafo wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > I never knew there was such a thing as a "nasal sonorant" or a
> > "bilabial fricative"! I'm thinkin' TomMcD and JeremyS will be
> > themselves a fine time checking this SAMPA stuff out. :-)
Fortunately, you don't expect me to pass this one up.
> I don't actually know a sonorant from a fricative either, aside from what I can
> figure out by looking at the examples.
That's okay. It's a little-known fact that a sonorant is the high-pitched
sqawking sound made by someone rapidly applying a rubber eraser to a pencil
mark on a shaky metal table. Usage of this word was not uncommon until
about the 19th century, when its popularity eventually died down; the
emergence of table joint lubricant at this time is most probably a
coincidence.
As for the fricative, that's simply the blue rubber gasket on your car's
turn signal reservoir, sealing the connection where the reservoir delivers
fluid into the fribillator.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com>
http://www.io.com/~jsproat
Darth Maul Lives
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> writes:
> > I don't actually know a sonorant from a fricative either, aside from what I can
> > figure out by looking at the examples.
>
> That's okay. It's a little-known fact that a sonorant is the high-pitched
> sqawking sound made by someone rapidly applying a rubber eraser to a pencil
> mark on a shaky metal table. Usage of this word was not uncommon until
> about the 19th century, when its popularity eventually died down; the
> emergence of table joint lubricant at this time is most probably a
> coincidence.
>
> As for the fricative, that's simply the blue rubber gasket on your car's
> turn signal reservoir, sealing the connection where the reservoir delivers
> fluid into the fribillator.
LOL!!! I'm laughing so hard I can hardly breathe.
God, what I would give for a daily word-definition like that by e-mail in
the morning, or an "Ask Jeremy" box on a web page where you could ask what a
word meant. :)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> Robert Munafo wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > I never knew there was such a thing as a "nasal sonorant" or a
> > > "bilabial fricative"! I'm thinkin' TomMcD and JeremyS will be
> > > themselves a fine time checking this SAMPA stuff out. :-)
>
> Fortunately, you don't expect me to pass this one up.
It's a "smart-ass thing" actually.
> > I don't actually know a sonorant from a fricative either, aside from what I • can
> > figure out by looking at the examples.
>
> That's okay. It's a little-known fact that a sonorant is the high-pitched
> sqawking sound made by someone rapidly applying a rubber eraser to a pencil
> mark on a shaky metal table. Usage of this word was not uncommon until
> about the 19th century, when its popularity eventually died down; the
> emergence of table joint lubricant at this time is most probably a
> coincidence.
The first table-joint lubricant, made largely of walrus fat oil and safflower
extract, was called "Dr. Numba's Anti-Sonorant Potion". Dr. Numba was an alias
of a former carpet-bagger turned honest by the name of Howard Xerxes Milbourne
from Durham NC. Later, Milbourne found work as a chemist in developing the
world's first billiard balls.
> As for the fricative, that's simply the blue rubber gasket on your car's
> turn signal reservoir, sealing the connection where the reservoir delivers
> fluid into the fribillator.
It's also an obscure Athapascan verb tense indicating the possible occurrence
of a future event pending approval of an appropriate spirit being, as in
"future fricative".
-Tom McD.
when replying, "Roll out the spamcake.. We'll have a barrel of fun.."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tom McDonald writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> > As for the fricative, that's simply the blue rubber gasket on your car's
> > turn signal reservoir, sealing the connection where the reservoir delivers
> > fluid into the fribillator.
> It's also an obscure Athapascan verb tense indicating the possible occurrence
> of a future event pending approval of an appropriate spirit being, as in
> "future fricative".
Avid "Northern Exposure" fans might recall that a bilabial fricative refers to
the state of mind one achieves while awaiting an answer from an Athapascan
spirit while consming bilibiatho (1) blowing in from Inuit grounds.
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. The soft, pink snow borne by the east winds in July, it falls at a steep
angle close to the ground on the leeward side of a mountain peak. Compare
with bililuminous, the glowing pink snow borne by hot winds from Washington
state's Hanford Nuclear Complex; and with bilinihongo, the prepackaged and
artificially-colored pink snow borne by freighter from Japan.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Jeremy Sproat writes:
> 1. The soft, pink snow borne by the east winds in July, it falls at a steep
> angle close to the ground on the leeward side of a mountain peak. Compare
> with bililuminous, the glowing pink snow borne by hot winds from Washington
> state's Hanford Nuclear Complex; and with bilinihongo, the prepackaged and
> artificially-colored pink snow borne by freighter from Japan.
Hostess Sno-balls are good example of the usage of this substance.
-Tom McD.
when replying, little wedge-shaped spamcakes make good climbing pitons.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctech.com> writes:
> > [...] I once worked with a guy named John Muchow. [...]
> > His last name is pronounced MUHK-ow, but when he first started on the
> > job [...] we all assumed it was MOO-kow. That quickly somehow mutated
> > into "Mookie" and stuck for years. [...]
>
> It's not at all clear whether you intend your syllable "MUHK" to rhyme with
> "book" or with "fluke" (you didn't mean "muck" because then you would have just
> typed "MUCK"). Rhyme with "fluke" seemed most likely, until I got to "MOO-kow"
> and got confused. Perhaps you're trying to point out the placement of the "k".
> No, that can't be -- you'd have to introduce an artificial glottal stop to
> force the "k" into being part of the first syllable! Hmmm...
Hmm. Y'know, you're right! -- I should've simply written MUCK. By MUHK, I
was trying to get the "uh" sound. I'm no phoneticist! :)
Anyway, so his last named is actually pronounced MUCK-ow, but we incorrectly
pronounced it MOO-kow (or MUKE-ow), which quickly led to Mookie.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:59:37 GMT, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctech.com>
wrote:
> It's not at all clear whether you intend your syllable "MUHK" to rhyme with
> "book" or with "fluke" (you didn't mean "muck" because then you would have just
> typed "MUCK").
I assumed Todd *did* mean 'MUHK' to rhyme with 'muck'. I didn't think
about it at the time, but 'UH' doesn't look much like it should be
pronounced like the sounds in either "book" or "fluke".
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:59:37 GMT, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctech.com>
> wrote:
> > It's not at all clear whether you intend your syllable "MUHK" to rhyme
> > with "book" or with "fluke" (you didn't mean "muck" because then you
> > would have just typed "MUCK").
>
> I assumed Todd *did* mean 'MUHK' to rhyme with 'muck'. I didn't think
> about it at the time, but 'UH' doesn't look much like it should be
> pronounced like the sounds in either "book" or "fluke".
That's essentially the problem with colloquial phonetic spelling -- there are
two methods. Some people (like me) use existing words whenever existing words
are available:
Todd: "TODD", Lugnet: "LUG-net", Steve: "STEVE", phonetic: "foe-NEH-tick"
and other people (perhaps including you) always use a certain letter pair for
each different vowel sound:
Todd: "TAWD", Lugnet: "LUHG-neht", Steve: "STEEV", phonetic: "foh-NEH-tihk"
Both methods have advantages and disadvantages, but they're incompatible, and
if you use the second method, there is no agreed-upon single consistent system
for representing the 20 or so vowel sounds that occur in English. That's
complicated by all the dialects.
-Robert Munafo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> writes:
> [...]
> Todd: "TAWD", [...]
> [...]
Hey, how close is that to TWOD? (I gather that's the native-East-Coast way
to pronounce it -- similar to BWOS'-tin. :) Where I grew up (Minneapolis)
it's pronounced TAHD, but not quite the nasal TAAHHHD that they say in
Milwaukee and Chicago. :)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote in message <37a0e8e2.108331275@lugnet.com>...
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> • writes:
>
> > [...]
> > Todd: "TAWD", [...]
> > [...]
>
> Hey, how close is that to TWOD? (I gather that's the native-East-Coast way
> to pronounce it -- similar to BWOS'-tin. :) Where I grew up (Minneapolis)
> it's pronounced TAHD, but not quite the nasal TAAHHHD that they say in
> Milwaukee and Chicago. :)
Is the east coast you refer to the upper part of maine? I never heard it
pronounced like that.
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman writes:
> Hey, how close is that to TWOD? (I gather that's the native-East-Coast way
> to pronounce it -- similar to BWOS'-tin. :) Where I grew up (Minneapolis)
> it's pronounced TAHD, but not quite the nasal TAAHHHD that they say in
> Milwaukee and Chicago. :)
>
> --Todd
Ah, a great mystery of life has become revealed. Now I understand Todd's
attraction to LEGO. Being from Mininoplace, he naturally took to minifigs.
:')
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet <377fa446.2704266@lugnet.com>...
>
> On the social side, and this is probably the bigger concern, there are all
> sorts of possible usernames that walk the gray area between what would pass
> and what would fail. Certainly there are things that would obviously fail
> that weren't offensive, and things that would obviously pass that weren't
> offensive, but things aren't always black and white.
Yeah, and don't forget other languages! What's perfectly clean in English, may
be an insult in another language (no examples will be given), and vice versa.
As a side note (I think I have mentioned it before?), the name LUGNET has many
obvious meanings in Swedish:
1 - 'The calm' (IOW lugnet is 'tranquility base')
2 - A famous Swedish arena for winter sports, mainly ski jumping.
3 - An industrial area in Stockholm, which burned down yesterday
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Anders Isaksson writes:
> Yeah, and don't forget other languages! What's perfectly clean in English,
> may be an insult in another language (no examples will be given), and vice
> versa.
That's another reason to restrict the member-ID's only to representations
of real-life names...that way, if something happens to be obscene in another
language, it's obvious that it was based directly on someone's name, and not
obscene on purpose (or at least obscene with plausible deniability for the
person). So if there's someone out there named, say, Don Griffith, and he
chose 'dong', then so be it. That's pretty mild, but it would have to be
the same for anything actually truly filthy, because I don't want to get
into censorship issues. Forcing the ID's to be name-based keeps it
objective and, to a large degree, mechanizable.
> As a side note (I think I have mentioned it before?), the name LUGNET has
> many obvious meanings in Swedish:
>
> 1 - 'The calm' (IOW lugnet is 'tranquility base')
> 2 - A famous Swedish arena for winter sports, mainly ski jumping.
Yup! :) We researched this long ago before going public with the name,
just to make sure it didn't mean something bad. We checked with Tore and
a couple other people in Sweden, and looked around with AltaVista.
> 3 - An industrial area in Stockholm, which burned down yesterday
ooh, bad juju.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an
escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be
relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal.
I know, I know, you don't want to be the decider, because that means
that you may be charged as being subjective. But you know what, life is
in some ways subjective and not always completely fair. I think you may
be straining at gnats if you try to make this perfect.
Set up a policy, then allow exceptions on appeal. Offload the decision
onto a board of faithful stalwarts (I volunteer for same) done by email.
Just make sure I can have lar if we go with character based IDs. :-)
> p.s. To anyone who reads this post and feels I've really gone out to the
> looney farm this time, well, all I can say is that I actually find this
> topic endlessly fascinating! :-)
well, ya, you have. But if you weren't as anal as you are this place
wouldn't be half as nifty as it is. So keep on.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an
> escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be
> relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal.
That sounds like a great idea.
> I know, I know, you don't want to be the decider, because that means
> that you may be charged as being subjective. But you know what, life is
> in some ways subjective and not always completely fair. I think you may
> be straining at gnats if you try to make this perfect.
>
> Set up a policy, then allow exceptions on appeal. Offload the decision
> onto a board of faithful stalwarts (I volunteer for same) done by email.
We could do that. BTW, what do you mean by "appeal"? Someone recevies a
"didn't pass" message and voluntarily says "Hey, I'd like to appeal that
decision?"
That's kind of neat, because, perhaps ultimately cases of appeal become
decided by the community (over discussion or debate somewhere, followed by
a 1/2 or 2/3 majority vote, say) and as such, the voting could provide a
veto mechanism. That's one way to handle appeals, anyway.
> Just make sure I can have lar if we go with character based IDs. :-)
If this style of member-ID's (name-based) is used, you'll surely have no
problem getting "lar". :-)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> We could do that. BTW, what do you mean by "appeal"? Someone recevies a
> "didn't pass" message and voluntarily says "Hey, I'd like to appeal that
> decision?"
Yes.
>
> That's kind of neat, because, perhaps ultimately cases of appeal become
> decided by the community (over discussion or debate somewhere, followed by
> a 1/2 or 2/3 majority vote, say) and as such, the voting could provide a
> veto mechanism. That's one way to handle appeals, anyway.
I meant that it would go to a relatively small board, self selected, but
with your veto on membership, that would make the call.
Form-of-Government-wise I'm more of a republican than a democrat(1), I
think putting these questions to the popular vote of the entire
membership will be somewhat unwieldy.
> > Just make sure I can have lar if we go with character based IDs. :-)
>
> If this style of member-ID's (name-based) is used, you'll surely have no
> problem getting "lar". :-)
You've announced you didn't want to start collating requests.
Posit this scenario. I drop off the net due to hardware problems or
because I can't afford the time to dial in. You announce we're going
with alpha IDs. A week goes by, I'm still not back, and some perfectly
legitimate person (Larry Alfred Reynolds) requests ID lar. The
automation, unschooled in newsgroup lore, grants it as it passes the
test.
I'm now going to be using the ID SOOL because that's what I will be. :-)
So I suggest you recant and accept requests now with the proviso they
may mean nothing if alpha IDs are not allowed, or that they may fail
whatever test is put in place and require an appeal.
This kind of reminds me of the whole domain name precedence thing.
1 - although I am neither, politically. Is there anyone who does not
know what politics I favor? :-)
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> I meant that it would go to a relatively small board, self selected, but
> with your veto on membership, that would make the call.
> Form-of-Government-wise I'm more of a republican than a democrat(1), I
> think putting these questions to the popular vote of the entire
> membership will be somewhat unwieldy.
That makes sense. I have always favored constitutional republics over pure
democracies as well.
> You've announced you didn't want to start collating requests.
If it's avoidable.
> Posit this scenario. I drop off the net due to hardware problems or
> because I can't afford the time to dial in. You announce we're going
> with alpha IDs. A week goes by, I'm still not back, and some perfectly
> legitimate person (Larry Alfred Reynolds) requests ID lar. The
> automation, unschooled in newsgroup lore, grants it as it passes the
> test.
>
> I'm now going to be using the ID SOOL because that's what I will be. :-)
I meant, because of all the help you gave last summer and before that and
after that, I'll help make sure that you get "lar" if member-IDs end up
being short characters strings based on names.
> So I suggest you recant and accept requests now with the proviso they
> may mean nothing if alpha IDs are not allowed, or that they may fail
> whatever test is put in place and require an appeal.
All right, could we do that through a lugnet.people ng? That'll be an ng
before too long anyway, which'll be capable of certain new neat things.
If you had "lar", BTW, your on-site homepage page would be either
http://www.lugnet.com/people/lar/
or
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=lar
(still more URL details to work out internally), and someday might
conceivably also be
http://www.lugnet.com/~lar/
but no guarantees on that. It's easy to configure a webserver for that sort
of thing, but I have to think more about how it all relates to directory
stuff.
> This kind of reminds me of the whole domain name precedence thing.
Hee hee hee.
> 1 - although I am neither, politically. Is there anyone who does not
> know what politics I favor? :-)
Hmm. Tell me again? I forget sometimes. ;-)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> All right, could we do that through a lugnet.people ng? That'll be an ng
> before too long anyway, which'll be capable of certain new neat things.
Cool. Yes, seems like a good idea. It may be several days after you
start it that I get to post to it, though.
> > 1 - although I am neither, politically. Is there anyone who does not
> > know what politics I favor? :-)
>
> Hmm. Tell me again? I forget sometimes. ;-)
Marxist. Especially Harpo, he's quite underrated.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote
> Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an
> escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be
> relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal.
"I want dvbnik"
"that doesn't appeal to me"
Moz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> [snip]
> Set up a policy, then allow exceptions on appeal. Offload the decision
> onto a board of faithful stalwarts (I volunteer for same) done by email.
> [snip]
I was basically goig to write the same note, but wanted to read through
the thread first. I should have figured Larry would come up with this
answer. I too would volunteer for such a duty (and not be offended if
you didn't want me).
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <377F7B94.54831B27@voyager.net>...
> Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an
> escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be
> relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal.
>
> I know, I know, you don't want to be the decider, because that means
> that you may be charged as being subjective. But you know what, life is
> in some ways subjective and not always completely fair. I think you may
> be straining at gnats if you try to make this perfect.
>
> Set up a policy, then allow exceptions on appeal. Offload the decision
> onto a board of faithful stalwarts (I volunteer for same) done by email.
<snip!>
Todd,
Maybe I've been watching too much "Law and Order", but...
I understand your reluctance to shoulder the huge (!) burden of policing
the member name space for potentially offensive alphanumeric combinations.
The burden, responsibility, and yes, even liability that you would assume
should not be underestimated. But I also feel that it would be much more
"friendly" if members could personalize their IDs by using a nickname if
they prefer, and much more consistent with the current situation and
atmosphere at LUGNET.
It seems to me that whether the censorship is performed by you personally
or by a committee of volunteers, it will still be a big job, and still be
vulnerable to all the same pitfalls. Even a large committee cannot foresee
every possible interpretation of every proposed moniker. And as you
mentioned earlier, the definition of what is "offensive" could change over
time and is largely subjective.
Instead, what if you set up a more democratic "people's court" forum:
Just let each user choose whatever name or nickname they want when they
register, as long as it's not already taken or previously "reserved" as
being blatantly unacceptable. Initially, you rely on the maturity of the
members to choose reasonable names. Then, if somebody later decides that a
user's moniker is offensive, they can lodge their complaint by posting to
the list.
At this point, the "defendant" is notified of the complaint via e-mail
and invited to defend their choice. A public debate on the list would
follow, possibly culminating in a formal yay/nay vote to allow or disallow
the name. You could allow one vote per member, with voting performed either
on a special web page or by e-mailing a "ballot" to a special address before
some deadline.
This is my favorite part -- repeat offenders (do I hear three strikes?)
would have their user name permanently re-assigned by the mob. If a name is
voted down then it (and any obvious variations) is added to the "automatic
reject database" alluded to earlier to squash it for good.
You could also add an escape hatch so that if the defendant "cops a plea"
and changes his/her name without bringing it to a full vote, you reward them
by not counting it as one of their three strikes. This waiver applies only
once-in-a-lifetime in order to prevent abuse.
Of course, this system would require that you be equipped to change
somebody's existing user name to something else at any arbitrary point in
the future. I don't know if this would cause problems for you; you did seem
to want these names to last a lifetime. Also, this probably wouldn't be an
effective way to prevent people from using "cutesy, worst-of-AOL" nicknames.
I think you would find that most disputes would be very clear-cut, and
that this would rarely come to an actual vote of the membership. Also, this
would spread the responsibility for this major task out to the entire
membership. Ultimately, it will depend on the vigilance and outrage of the
entire community to decide what is acceptable under any scheme.
Just a few thoughts fueled by too much coffee!
Sincerely
Chris Phillips
p.s. Note that my most common nickname, "Chrispy" (independently assigned
to me by my co-workers at three different jobs) is another example of one
which would not be legal under the "knock letters out of your name" scheme.
(I'd probably have to settle for "chrispi" or "chrispii" to get the correct
pronunciation.)
p.p.s. The above is NOT a shameless attempt to reserve my moniker! (It's
downright shameful if you ask me!!!)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Did I really need to quote? I'm sure most everyone knows what's going on.
Anyway, here's a possible sollution that I'm keen on (please hear the newbie
out....)
I sign up for a membership and, since the system advances member numbers
numerically(?!?), I get stuck with #612. Nothing too exciting, but there's
nothing I can do about it. It's there for life. However, the system (hereby
refered to as LUGNET) also knows me by my real name (Charles Seyferth, or
possibly charles.seyferth), which I also cannot change. The system also knows
me as "Feanor23x", a name that nobody has taken offence to. I can change this
later on, since LUGNET will acknowledge me by my unique user ID (612) and real
name. If enough people are offended by my nickname, I'l be forced to change
it. Now, when I want to log in as a member, I've got 3 options:
612
charles seyferth (or charles.seyferth)
feanor23x
This way there is some flexibility, while still mainatining a sense of order
and continuity
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "charles seyferth" <feanor23x@geocities.com>
writes:
> Did I really need to quote? I'm sure most everyone knows what's going on.
> Anyway, here's a possible sollution that I'm keen on (please hear the newbie
> out....)
Naw, in this case, quoting probably doesn't add much, because you're posting
something almost totally new.
> I sign up for a membership and, since the system advances member numbers
> numerically(?!?), I get stuck with #612. Nothing too exciting, but there's
> nothing I can do about it. It's there for life. However, the system (hereby
> refered to as LUGNET) also knows me by my real name (Charles Seyferth, or
> possibly charles.seyferth), which I also cannot change. The system also knows
> me as "Feanor23x", a name that nobody has taken offence to. I can change this
> later on, since LUGNET will acknowledge me by my unique user ID (612) and real
> name. If enough people are offended by my nickname, I'l be forced to change
> it. Now, when I want to log in as a member, I've got 3 options:
>
> 612
> charles seyferth (or charles.seyferth)
> feanor23x
>
> This way there is some flexibility, while still mainatining a sense of order
> and continuity
Well, the member-ID's are unique -mainly- for URLs on the outside, but also
for system-database purposes on the inside. In the URL sense, there's no
sense in having 2 or 3 or more ID's per person -- only one per person --
otherwise URLs are no longer unique and that messes up link coloring in
browsers, among other things.
You also really won't ever have to "log in" anytime -- unless you choose to
disable cookies in your web browser, or if two or more people share a
machine or a profile, or if you log in temporarily from a public place such
as a library.
As far as visability of the member-ID's, it's a goal to make them as
unobtrusive as possible...although there's no way to escape their appearance
in URLs of member pages. The member-ID's have no relation whatsoever to
news articles, except that the member-ID will probably be added
automatically by the system to the headers of any new news message, just
like it currently adds the X-Real-Life-Name header to each post. So the
member-ID (if you don't like it) isn't something that you're stuck with
during day-to-day communications...only in URLs of on-site member pages.
People wouldn't walk around going, "Pleased to meet you, two seventy-five.
I'm six twelve." You'd still say, "Hi, I'm Charles," or "Hi, I'm feanor23x"
in day-to-day communications.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Well, the member-ID's are unique -mainly- for URLs on the outside, but also
> for system-database purposes on the inside. In the URL sense, there's no
> sense in having 2 or 3 or more ID's per person -- only one per person --
> otherwise URLs are no longer unique and that messes up link coloring in
> browsers, among other things.
>
> You also really won't ever have to "log in" anytime -- unless you choose to
> disable cookies in your web browser, or if two or more people share a
> machine or a profile, or if you log in temporarily from a public place such
> as a library.
>
> As far as visability of the member-ID's, it's a goal to make them as
> unobtrusive as possible...although there's no way to escape their appearance
> in URLs of member pages. The member-ID's have no relation whatsoever to
> news articles, except that the member-ID will probably be added
> automatically by the system to the headers of any new news message, just
> like it currently adds the X-Real-Life-Name header to each post. So the
> member-ID (if you don't like it) isn't something that you're stuck with
> during day-to-day communications...only in URLs of on-site member pages.
>
> People wouldn't walk around going, "Pleased to meet you, two seventy-five.
> I'm six twelve." You'd still say, "Hi, I'm Charles," or "Hi, I'm feanor23x"
> in day-to-day communications.
>
> --Todd
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading above, the Member IDs really
serve no purpose other than a system ID, similar to a Unix address. They won't
be used as an identifier for posting to news/discussion groups. They will be
primarily background info, although they will/could display, along with
real/alias names, in news and on sites.
If that is the case, then make it very easy on yourself, and everyone here, and
go with pure numerics.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Ed Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading above, the Member IDs really
> serve no purpose other than a system ID, similar to a Unix address. They won't
> be used as an identifier for posting to news/discussion groups. They will be
> primarily background info, although they will/could display, along with
> real/alias names, in news and on sites.
Very well put -- Yes, that's about it! As far as I can imagine right now,
they'll only appear in URLs. I'm *sure* there must be some other place that
they'll pop up someday down the road, but my crystal ball draws a blank on
that one today.
Well, actually, here's one place they might show up: Suppose that someday
lugnet.com (or lugnet.org) offers e-mail addresses. It would mean that, for
example, LarryP might conceivably someday be able to receive and send mail
to/from lar@lugnet.org -- that's not inconceivable someday.
> If that is the case, then make it very easy on yourself, and everyone here, and
> go with pure numerics.
I think it really boils down to a choice between this format (letters):
http://www.lugnet.com/people/lar/
http://www.lugnet.com/people/pschmep/
http://www.lugnet.com/people/bobklim/
etc.
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=lar
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=pschmep
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=bobklim
etc.
http://www.lugnet.com/~lar
http://www.lugnet.com/~pschmep
http://www.lugnet.com/~bobklim
etc.
lar@lugnet.org
pschmep@lugnet.org
bobklim@lugnet.org
etc.
or this format (numbers):
http://www.lugnet.com/people/1/
http://www.lugnet.com/people/2/
http://www.lugnet.com/people/3/
etc.
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=1
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=2
http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=3
etc.
http://www.lugnet.com/~1
http://www.lugnet.com/~2
http://www.lugnet.com/~3
etc.
1@lugnet.org
2@lugnet.org
3@lugnet.org
etc.
See why I'm having such a hard time with pure-numbers?
(BTW, there'd probably still be member-#'s just for fun even if there were
alphabetic-character member-ID's.)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
Uhhh, one us is having server troubles. None of the URLS listed below are
working.
"The requested URL /people/bobklim/ was not found on this server."
>
> I think it really boils down to a choice between this format (letters):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/lar/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/pschmep/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/bobklim/
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=lar
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=pschmep
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=bobklim
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~lar
> http://www.lugnet.com/~pschmep
> http://www.lugnet.com/~bobklim
> etc.
>
> lar@lugnet.org
> pschmep@lugnet.org
> bobklim@lugnet.org
> etc.
>
> or this format (numbers):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/1/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/2/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/3/
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=1
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=2
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=3
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~1
> http://www.lugnet.com/~2
> http://www.lugnet.com/~3
> etc.
>
> 1@lugnet.org
> 2@lugnet.org
> 3@lugnet.org
> etc.
>
> See why I'm having such a hard time with pure-numbers?
>
> (BTW, there'd probably still be member-#'s just for fun even if there were
> alphabetic-character member-ID's.)
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, "Ed Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> Uhhh, one us is having server troubles. None of the URLS listed below are
> working.
>
> "The requested URL /people/bobklim/ was not found on this server."
>
> [...snip non-functional URLs...]
Heh heh. No, they're not supposed to work; they don't exist.
I meant that it boiled down to a choice between *format* A and *format* B,
where the two formats were shown by example rather than parameterized.
Sorry for the confusion.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ah, got it. Sorry I'm so used to you providing these great sample pages I just
automatically clicked on the links. But I do see the delemna with jsut
numbers.
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Ed Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> writes:
>
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> >
> > Uhhh, one us is having server troubles. None of the URLS listed below are
> > working.
> >
> > "The requested URL /people/bobklim/ was not found on this server."
> >
> > [...snip non-functional URLs...]
>
> Heh heh. No, they're not supposed to work; they don't exist.
>
> I meant that it boiled down to a choice between *format* A and *format* B,
> where the two formats were shown by example rather than parameterized.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> I think it really boils down to a choice between this format (letters):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/lar/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/pschmep/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/bobklim/
> etc.
>
> --Todd
Yeah! now I'm a pschmep. (sound effects) > schmep schmep schmep. Heheh. sometimes
I hate my last name. :)
Patricia Schempp
pschemp@clemson.edu
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Patricia Schempp writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > I think it really boils down to a choice between this format (letters):
> >
> > http://www.lugnet.com/people/lar/
> > http://www.lugnet.com/people/pschmep/
> > http://www.lugnet.com/people/bobklim/
> > etc.
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Yeah! now I'm a pschmep. (sound effects) > schmep schmep schmep.
> Heheh. sometimes I hate my last name. :)
Oops, sorry about that! I guess my fingers automatically typed "...schme..."
for some reason. Maybe because there's a William Schmeckpeper in the online
LEGO fan world. Anyway, sorry for not paying closer attention... Glad you
have a sense of humor. :)
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Well, actually, here's one place they might show up: Suppose that someday
> lugnet.com (or lugnet.org) offers e-mail addresses. It would mean that, for
> example, LarryP might conceivably someday be able to receive and send mail
> to/from lar@lugnet.org -- that's not inconceivable someday.
Actually, I don't see that as much of an issue. As an example, my e-mail
address shows up as "galliard@shades-of-night.com", however, the actual POP box
I am assigned is "shadesofnight03", which has yet another designation for
netnation internally. Not to mention that just about every other email address
at shades-of-night (all but three out of ~50, in fact) is a forward to an
external box somewhere else.
So, if the day comes when Lugnet offers e-mail, Larry would have the POP box of
"2", and could assign "lar@" or "larryp@" or conceivably anything else you
allow to be his apparant address. Or, if Larry so desired, he could dispense
with the Lugnet POP box altogether, and have "lar@lugnet.com" automatically
forward to his Novera account, where it will show up in the header as sent to
"lar@lugnet.com"
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
P.S. I'm in favour of using a straight numerical system. It's simple, it's
straightforward, and even a computer can understand it :)
Assigning ID's either through 'first posting to Lugnet' order (at least
initially - it should be possible for people who have never posted to get a
membership), or completely randomly, excepting yourself and Suzanne.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
James Brown wrote
> P.S. I'm in favour of using a straight numerical system. It's simple, it's
> straightforward, and even a computer can understand it :)
Sounds good to me.
Moz, Chris, "hey you" and whatever else falls my way
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, "Ed Jones" <edboxer@aol.com> writes:
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading above, the Member IDs really
> > serve no purpose other than a system ID, similar to a Unix address. They won't
> > be used as an identifier for posting to news/discussion groups. They will be
> > primarily background info, although they will/could display, along with
> > real/alias names, in news and on sites.
>
> Very well put -- Yes, that's about it! As far as I can imagine right now,
> they'll only appear in URLs. I'm *sure* there must be some other place that
> they'll pop up someday down the road, but my crystal ball draws a blank on
> that one today.
Just a thought, but how about in a chat? If LUGNET had a chatroom down the
road, the members would probably use their member name as a screen name.
Greg
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/
>
> Well, actually, here's one place they might show up: Suppose that someday
> lugnet.com (or lugnet.org) offers e-mail addresses. It would mean that, for
> example, LarryP might conceivably someday be able to receive and send mail
> to/from lar@lugnet.org -- that's not inconceivable someday.
>
>
> > If that is the case, then make it very easy on yourself, and everyone here, and
> > go with pure numerics.
>
> I think it really boils down to a choice between this format (letters):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/lar/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/pschmep/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/bobklim/
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=lar
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=pschmep
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=bobklim
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~lar
> http://www.lugnet.com/~pschmep
> http://www.lugnet.com/~bobklim
> etc.
>
> lar@lugnet.org
> pschmep@lugnet.org
> bobklim@lugnet.org
> etc.
>
> or this format (numbers):
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/1/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/2/
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/3/
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=1
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=2
> http://www.lugnet.com/people/?i=3
> etc.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~1
> http://www.lugnet.com/~2
> http://www.lugnet.com/~3
> etc.
>
> 1@lugnet.org
> 2@lugnet.org
> 3@lugnet.org
> etc.
>
> See why I'm having such a hard time with pure-numbers?
>
> (BTW, there'd probably still be member-#'s just for fun even if there were
> alphabetic-character member-ID's.)
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> You could end up with a bidding war similar to personalised car licence
> plates.
>
> Numbers like 1, 13 and dare I say it 69 may raise a lot of interest. Then
> again this could be a good thing if people are prepared to pay for these
> numbers via an auction and thus become a good money earner for Lugnet
> Corporation.
I like the idea of auctioning them off. Set the start price at $0.00 for each
number, if no one counterbids within say a week they get the number.
All numbers withing the range the database can handle are open from day one.
So if you want a particular set number, or part number then you can grab it.
And if you want your birthdate, lucky number, what'ever...
First month could be restricted to old timers bidding only, then you could open
it up to people who have posted 1000+ messages in the last year, or something
like that until all the people that should have first pick have had their
chance.
Then open it to everyone. Maybe you'd make a couple $$$ for lugnet, maybe not.
But it should be fun...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Cortez wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> > You could end up with a bidding war similar to personalised car licence
> > plates.
> >
> > Numbers like 1, 13 and dare I say it 69 may raise a lot of interest. Then
> > again this could be a good thing if people are prepared to pay for these
> > numbers via an auction and thus become a good money earner for Lugnet
> > Corporation.
>
>
> I like the idea of auctioning them off. Set the start price at $0.00 for each
> number, if no one counterbids within say a week they get the number.
As long as they weren't fixed-end-point auctions, right? :-)
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:37:55 GMT, Michael Cortez uttered the following
profundities...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> > You could end up with a bidding war similar to personalised car licence
> > plates.
> >
> > Numbers like 1, 13 and dare I say it 69 may raise a lot of interest. Then
> > again this could be a good thing if people are prepared to pay for these
> > numbers via an auction and thus become a good money earner for Lugnet
> > Corporation.
>
>
> I like the idea of auctioning them off. Set the start price at $0.00 for each
> number, if no one counterbids within say a week they get the number.
>
> Then open it to everyone. Maybe you'd make a couple $$$ for lugnet, maybe not.
> But it should be fun...
Give any proceeds to a children's charity, perhaps. One whose
focus might involve the constructive and educational benefits
of Lego.
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Richard Dee <richard.dee@virgin.net> wrote:
> > Then open it to everyone. Maybe you'd make a couple $$$ for lugnet, maybe not.
> > But it should be fun...
>
> Give any proceeds to a children's charity, perhaps. One whose
> focus might involve the constructive and educational benefits
> of Lego.
That might be an admirable goal at some time in the future, but one of
the goals that some of us have right now is to make sure Lugnet
becomes a self-supporting venture so Todd and Suz can keep doing it
and we can keep enjoying it.
So I'd say any money made through any type of "auction" at Lugnet
ought to go right back into Lugnet.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
How about letting people get a member number based on their favorite LEGO
set. Although I am sure that certain numbers (4558, 6399, etc.) would be
much sought after. You could auction them off to raise money for LUGNET.
This method would be interesting to see what people come up with.
Mike - mike_walsh@mentorg.com
http://members.tripod.com/mike_walsh
PS: Dibs on 6542!
Todd Lehman wrote in message <377be037.91385342@lugnet.com>...
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> Here are some possibilities:
>
> - One possibility is simply to start at 1 and count upward on a first-
> come, first-serve basis, one number at a time. (I think this might
> be what ICQ does...?) Whatever number ya get, ya got, and that's that.
>
> - Another possibility is a variant of that where you get to choose your
> number from a list of the lowest 100 available numbers. (This would
> allow the superstitious among us to avoid scary numbers like 13, 666,
> or 7734 -- or to have a better chance at getting something containing
> a favorite or lucky number, like 23, 69, or 7777.)
>
> - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers. For
> example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> gets what.
>
> All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
>
> Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
>
> --Todd
>
> [followups set to lugnet.admin.general]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike Walsh wrote in message ...
> How about letting people get a member number based on their favorite LEGO
> set. Although I am sure that certain numbers (4558, 6399, etc.) would be
I love this idea. And you can combine it with the old-timer privelidge--if
multiple people want the same number, it goes to the oldest R(or A)TLer.
And if someone pisses you off, you can assign them a Time Cruiser number.
> Todd Lehman wrote in message <377be037.91385342@lugnet.com>...
> > - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> > numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers. For
> > example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> > old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> > might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> > Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> > gets what.
Hmm, this idea is indeed interesting, but has a couple of problems...are 1-9
enough for the old-timers? And what if, after these select numbers are
handed out, a Jeff Crites shows up and is left with 1378 because the single
digits are already gone? Is there a statute of limitations on claiming a
low number? And while I'm sure I'd qualify for one, quite honestly I'd
rather have 39--but if it turns into a status symbol, I wouldn't want to
have to go medieval on some number 26 punk who thinks he's been around
longer than me (okay, that last one was a bit facetious, but I could see
that kind of thing happening). And, really, who would want 2? You'd just
have 7 people fighting over number 1.
Anyway, if your database (or whatever) can support it, I'm all for the set
number idea. And someone can still be number 1 if they actually want
it...but who wouldn't rather have 928 (for that matter, two people can have
the Galaxy Explorer with this system (497 works, too)).
:Derek
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Derek Schin" <dschin@mcn.net> writes:
> Mike Walsh wrote in message ...
> > How about letting people get a member number based on their favorite LEGO
> > set. Although I am sure that certain numbers (4558, 6399, etc.) would be
>
> I love this idea. And you can combine it with the old-timer privelidge--if
> multiple people want the same number, it goes to the oldest R(or A)TLer.
> And if someone pisses you off, you can assign them a Time Cruiser number.
I wonder how (technically) you would really settle any disputes over who was
"older." Maybe you'd have to let each party find (on their own) and
demonstrate their oldest post. But someone may have lurked for 6 months and
participated privately in auctions or private e-mail before ever posting --
so there's really no way to prove who came first.
> > Todd Lehman wrote in message <377be037.91385342@lugnet.com>...
> > > - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> > > numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers. For
> > > example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> > > old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> > > might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> > > Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> > > gets what.
>
> Hmm, this idea is indeed interesting, but has a couple of problems...are 1-9
> enough for the old-timers?
No -- but note the overlap of 1993-94 for 1-9 and 1993-96 for 10-99. Of
course 1-99 isn't enough for old-timers either, but it's probably enough for
really-old-timers.
> And what if, after these select numbers are
> handed out, a Jeff Crites shows up and is left with 1378 because the single
> digits are already gone?
That's what I meant by "reserved for or allocated to." A few numbers could
be reserved for old-timers who later show up. Just a thought.
> Is there a statute of limitations on claiming a
> low number? And while I'm sure I'd qualify for one, quite honestly I'd
> rather have 39--but if it turns into a status symbol, I wouldn't want to
> have to go medieval on some number 26 punk who thinks he's been around
> longer than me (okay, that last one was a bit facetious, but I could see
> that kind of thing happening). And, really, who would want 2? You'd just
> have 7 people fighting over number 1.
In in a chronological theory, the difference between 26 and 39 is probably
not too much -- maybe a couple weeks or months or days, but not years,
right? I'd be surprised, BTW, if any rivalry about having a lower number
transpired in a manner other than simple, playful fun.
> Anyway, if your database (or whatever) can support it, I'm all for the set
> number idea. And someone can still be number 1 if they actually want
> it...but who wouldn't rather have 928 (for that matter, two people can have
> the Galaxy Explorer with this system (497 works, too)).
The considerations really aren't technical but rather practical and
perceptual. So it would be no problem to have numbers going up through and
beyond all the set numbers. But I'd hate to see really large gaps in the
sequences (gaps of, say, more than 1000), so if it were opened up to a wide
range of numeric choice, there would have to be a limit on the initial
maximum, probably 10000 or something like that. It would be crazy to have
the existence of 57 and 3829239, for example, if everything in between
weren't filled in.
Here's the way I see the filling of numbers over time...
numbers
t .......
i x.x.x..........
m xxx.xx.xxx..x.x...........
e xxxxxx.xxxx.xxxxx.x.xx.xxx..........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxxx.x.x.......
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.x.xxx.............
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.x..x..xxx.xx..........
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx.x.xxxxx........
etc.
where x's represent taken #'s and .'s represent available #'s. Note that
unused doesn't necessarily imply available. The set of available numbers is
a proper subset of the set of unused numbers; if a # isn't yet represented
by a dot, then it's not yet available. This means, for example, that if the
highest number in the system is currently, say, 12345, then someone can't
jump ahead all the way to, say, 23456 until enough of the lower numbers
"catch up" (get filled in).
The big question, I guess, is how wide of a spread/gap to allow while things
are being filled in. I was initially thinking a maximum gap of 100 would be
great, but that wouldn't support the choosing of 4-digit set numbers.
Perhaps 100 could still be kept, but with an initial maximum gap of 10000.
That is, I want to make sure that the highest available number to be taken
never exceeds the lowest available number by more than some N, and N might
be 100 in the asymptotic case and 10000 for low numbers.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:10:37 GMT, Derek Schin uttered the following
profundities...
> You'd just
> have 7 people fighting over number 1.
>
> Anyway, if your database (or whatever) can support it, I'm all for the set
> number idea. And someone can still be number 1 if they actually want
> it...but who wouldn't rather have 928 (for that matter, two people can have
> the Galaxy Explorer with this system (497 works, too)).
There can be only one....number one. Todd!
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
>
> Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
I care. I was born in 69. I'd like 69.
Whatever scheme you adopt that allows me to get 69 would be good. I'm
sure everyone would agree.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
> >
> > All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> > they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> > over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
> >
> > Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
>
> I care. I was born in 69. I'd like 69.
>
> Whatever scheme you adopt that allows me to get 69 would be good. I'm
> sure everyone would agree.
Oh, absolutely ;-)
22(1)
(1)Julie - born on the 22nd of Dec.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
dkrenz wrote:
>
> Mike Stanley wrote:
> > I care. I was born in 69. I'd like 69.
> >
> > Whatever scheme you adopt that allows me to get 69 would be good.
I suspect a lot of us feel that way. But about ourselves. I already said
I want #2, though.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Forget that,
I want the highest possible number.
32767?
65536?
4294967296?
No I got it:
31337!
How about rank by number of website hits, or GB of data
transfer?
KL
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> dkrenz wrote:
> >
> > Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> > > I care. I was born in 69. I'd like 69.
> > >
> > > Whatever scheme you adopt that allows me to get 69 would be good.
>
> I suspect a lot of us feel that way. But about ourselves. I already said
> I want #2, though.
>
> --
> Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
> lugnet.
>
> NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
> will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
I don't necessarily agree that we should just pass out incremented numbers
when we have the ability to do otherwise.
> - Another possibility is a variant of that where you get to choose your
> number from a list of the lowest 100 available numbers. (This would
> allow the superstitious among us to avoid scary numbers like 13, 666,
> or 7734 -- or to have a better chance at getting something containing
> a favorite or lucky number, like 23, 69, or 7777.)
What if a temporary newsgroup was made where people could hash it out amongst
themselves, with impasses settled by oldest post to a lego newsgroup,
including RTL and ATL? How far back does deja.com or any other archive
services go to be able to prove this?
> - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers.
IMO, start out with the idea that everyone's number will be different, because
in many (most?) cases it'll be true. Let everyone say their number first to
see how it goes. I think it'll end up being civil, and it might end up being
more random than we think. If we go against this, it might end up creating
more work.
> For
> example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> gets what.
Todd, here's an idea for you: I think you should get number 1 and Suzanne 2,
unless you want zero, but you'll probably reserve zero for Mr. Glorp Foofoo (a
dummy member :-) If you do get 0, then Suzanne should be 1. All the same
here, I don't think folks would mind if you took the lowest or even most
coveted number, whatever that is. While you say Lugnet is "ours", you do a lot
of the actual work and pay the bills that keep it running, so I don't think
anyone will begrudge you that. It has also been suggested that Lego set
numbers would be nice - maybe pick something Blacktron I-ish for yourself :-)
> All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
Sometimes a four digit number is easier to remember because with that amount
of digits there's a bit more of a chance in developing a numerical pattern,
such as "2525", which is often easier for brains to latch onto rather than
just member number "183". I guess a concern in this case would be to limit how
high someone could go. If you use 32-bit numbers you could get people using
their dad's birthday, their girlfriend's measurements, whatever they can
remember.
> Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
Yeah, I care, if you're giving me a say in the matter, which it sounds like
you are. I kinda wished ICQ and Geocities had given me a say about my number.
In the idea of real houses on a street, we don't get this luxury (unless we
have a special connection with the zoning commission before plans are drawn
and approved, such as 1 Infinite Loop or 1 Microsoft Way), but since Lugnet is
a virtual community that is still in the early stage, we might be able to take
advantage of this.
-Tom McD.
when replying, our school lunch today is bbq tofu burgers with ketchup, tater
tots, and chocolate spamcake.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> >
> > Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> I don't necessarily agree that we should just pass out incremented numbers
> when we have the ability to do otherwise.
>
> > - Another possibility is a variant of that where you get to choose your
> > number from a list of the lowest 100 available numbers. (This would
> > allow the superstitious among us to avoid scary numbers like 13, 666,
> > or 7734 -- or to have a better chance at getting something containing
> > a favorite or lucky number, like 23, 69, or 7777.)
>
> What if a temporary newsgroup was made where people could hash it out amongst
> themselves, with impasses settled by oldest post to a lego newsgroup,
> including RTL and ATL? How far back does deja.com or any other archive
> services go to be able to prove this?
>
> > - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> > numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers.
>
> IMO, start out with the idea that everyone's number will be different, because
> in many (most?) cases it'll be true. Let everyone say their number first to
> see how it goes. I think it'll end up being civil, and it might end up being
> more random than we think. If we go against this, it might end up creating
> more work.
>
> > For
> > example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> > old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> > might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> > Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> > gets what.
>
> Todd, here's an idea for you: I think you should get number 1 and Suzanne 2,
> unless you want zero, but you'll probably reserve zero for Mr. Glorp Foofoo (a
> dummy member :-) If you do get 0, then Suzanne should be 1. All the same
> here, I don't think folks would mind if you took the lowest or even most
> coveted number, whatever that is. While you say Lugnet is "ours", you do a lot
> of the actual work and pay the bills that keep it running, so I don't think
> anyone will begrudge you that. It has also been suggested that Lego set
> numbers would be nice - maybe pick something Blacktron I-ish for yourself :-)
>
> > All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> > they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> > over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
>
> Sometimes a four digit number is easier to remember because with that amount
> of digits there's a bit more of a chance in developing a numerical pattern,
> such as "2525", which is often easier for brains to latch onto rather than
> just member number "183". I guess a concern in this case would be to limit how
> high someone could go. If you use 32-bit numbers you could get people using
> their dad's birthday, their girlfriend's measurements, whatever they can
> remember.
>
> > Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
>
> Yeah, I care, if you're giving me a say in the matter, which it sounds like
> you are. I kinda wished ICQ and Geocities had given me a say about my number.
>
> In the idea of real houses on a street, we don't get this luxury (unless we
> have a special connection with the zoning commission before plans are drawn
> and approved, such as 1 Infinite Loop or 1 Microsoft Way), but since Lugnet is
> a virtual community that is still in the early stage, we might be able to take
> advantage of this.
Or be at the right place at the right time. I grew up at 1 Thoreau St.
Concord MA (of course we also ignored the town when they changed the
house numbering from sequential numbering to being based on distance
from the start of the street, whence we technically became 21, but the
postman was never confused).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, "Tom McDonald" <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> writes:
> What if a temporary newsgroup was made where people could hash it out amongst
> themselves, with impasses settled by oldest post to a lego newsgroup,
> including RTL and ATL? How far back does deja.com or any other archive
> services go to be able to prove this?
I think they're missing the first year or so of RTL and the first two years
or so of ATL. But even if you could go back and check those definitively,
what do you do about people who lurked for along time first (and maybe still
participated, via auctions or trades or private e-mail discussions) or about
people who participated publicly but didn't reveal their name initially.
For example, TonyK identified himself in auctions and posts with only an
e-mail address of the form ab12345@foo.bar.edu -- so how would you discover
by looking at those old posts that it was Tony, unless you just happened to
remember that?
> > - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> > numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers.
>
> IMO, start out with the idea that everyone's number will be different, because
> in many (most?) cases it'll be true.
You mean everyone's desired number would be different in most cases?
(Because the chosen #'s have to be unique -- no duplicates.)
> Let everyone say their number first to
> see how it goes. I think it'll end up being civil, and it might end up being
> more random than we think. If we go against this, it might end up creating
> more work.
If everyone hashed it out via news postings, it might even be more work to
sort through those and verify who agreed on what than it would simply be to
assign things through an automated procedure (counting up, or taking bids,
or whatever).
> > For
> > example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> > old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> > might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> > Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> > gets what.
>
> Todd, here's an idea for you: I think you should get number 1 and Suzanne 2,
> unless you want zero, but you'll probably reserve zero for Mr. Glorp Foofoo (a
> dummy member :-) If you do get 0, then Suzanne should be 1. All the same
> here, I don't think folks would mind if you took the lowest or even most
> coveted number, whatever that is. While you say Lugnet is "ours", you do a lot
> of the actual work and pay the bills that keep it running, so I don't think
> anyone will begrudge you that. It has also been suggested that Lego set
> numbers would be nice - maybe pick something Blacktron I-ish for yourself :-)
If the people closest to the project get the lowest numbers, then the other
low numbers (1-9, 10-99, etc.) ought probably to be available (on a right-of
first refusal basis) either to old-timers or people who have contributed in
measurable ways...?
The funny thing is, even if numbers can be self-chosen (but avoiding
duplicates), eventually all of the low numbers will be taken up. Someday,
therefore, it's inescapable that low numbers (whatever that might mean) will
imply old-timer-hood relative to the lowest currently available numbers at
that point. So this lends credence to the theory of allocating the lowest
of the numbers carefully. The big question there would be now to do it
fairly and step on any toes, and I think the way to do that would be through
public discussion, as you suggested.
Several people come to my mind who, if low numbers end up meaning anything,
should in my opinion be given the chance to get a low number if they want a
low number. In one sense, that's not fair (because it's playing favorites)
but in another sense, it's more fair (because things aren't left to
potentially unfortunate randomness).
Perhaps we could do something along these lines (and this would only be a
one-time thing for the initial low numbers): Invite people to participate
in a public discussion to decide the allocation of low numbers (say, less
than 100). People could say what number they'd like, and if there are any
overlaps, discussion could decide who would get it. If there were any major
irreconcilable differences, maybe the winner could be decided via auction or
something. And if someone were shy or unavailable to participate, someone
could nominate them to get a particular low number or somewhere in a range.
After maybe a week of discussion, the numbers could be locked-in and
guaranteed to be reserved for each person. Then for higher numbers, up
through 9999, there could be a simple automated system (news would be too
much hassle for that big of a range).
Does that sound like the fairest way?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
>
> Does that sound like the fairest way?
>
> --Todd
Why are lowest numbers tied to history on the on-line LEGO community
anyway? I mean why RTL, ATL? I think of LUGNET as a phoenix of sorts,
with a fresh new beginning. Why not just assign them serially to people
important to LUGNET and forget about the olden days of ATL? You and the
people who help out should get numbers, then maybe major posters in the
newsgroups - from the past year (like the top 20% of posters or
something), and then
members as people sign up.
Or an auction is a cool idea too.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Christopher L. Weeks <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Why are lowest numbers tied to history on the on-line LEGO community
> anyway? I mean why RTL, ATL? I think of LUGNET as a phoenix of sorts,
> with a fresh new beginning. Why not just assign them serially to people
> important to LUGNET and forget about the olden days of ATL? You and the
> people who help out should get numbers, then maybe major posters in the
> newsgroups - from the past year (like the top 20% of posters or
> something), and then
> members as people sign up.
I agree with this. I've been around longer than some, not as long as
others. I'd probably rank among the earliest people to use Lugnet,
and probably be in the top 100 posters, I suppose.
I see Lugnet as something that has brought back some people from the
days when RTL didn't suck, which it has for quite a while, but also as
a beacon to bring in new people, people who never had ties to RTL/ATL.
Who is to say those people won't become the shining stars or best
contributors, outdoing any "old-timer".
Ultimately, I don't think it makes much difference, my joking about 69
notwithstanding. I'd say assigning numbers based on order of
"joining" or posting to Lugnet is as good a system as any, and
probably the one that makes the most sense. Might even be seen as the
most fair, whatever fair means or matters.
> Or an auction is a cool idea too.
Kinda silly, imo, but whatever works.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 00:19:49 GMT, "Christopher L. Weeks"
<c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Does that sound like the fairest way?
> >
> > --Todd
>
> Why are lowest numbers tied to history on the on-line LEGO community
> anyway? I mean why RTL, ATL? I think of LUGNET as a phoenix of sorts,
> with a fresh new beginning. Why not just assign them serially to people
> important to LUGNET and forget about the olden days of ATL? You and the
> people who help out should get numbers, then maybe major posters in the
> newsgroups - from the past year (like the top 20% of posters or
> something), and then
> members as people sign up.
>
> Or an auction is a cool idea too.
Why not just make this whole thing moot and just assign numbers in a random or
pseudo-random lottery? Have each person apply for a number, and have a server
doohicky spit out a random number from an available pool.
I think we're attaching far too much importance to these numbers.
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Terry Keller writes:
> Why not just make this whole thing moot and just assign numbers in a
> random or pseudo-random lottery? Have each person apply for a number,
> and have a server doohicky spit out a random number from an available
> pool.
Well, if they're still generally increasing slowly and the randomness comes
from a small pool of lowest-available numbers rather than a large pool of,
say, 32-bit integers, then that would certainly work too.
> I think we're attaching far too much importance to these numbers.
This is something I've been curious to learn more about for over 2 years.
I personally don't think that the particular assignments of numbers really
don't matter much (and would be perfectly happy letting things get assigned
semi-randomly on a first-come-first-serve basis), but if it turns out that
many people do feel that the allocation of lower numbers matter, then that's
an important consideration, since the decision has very long-term
implications.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> [...]
> I personally don't think that the particular assignments of numbers really
> don't matter much (and would be perfectly happy letting things get assigned
> semi-randomly on a first-come-first-serve basis), but [...]
Whoops, I think I accidentally didn't not make a double-negative there.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Perhaps we could do something along these lines (and this would only be a
> one-time thing for the initial low numbers): Invite people to participate
> in a public discussion to decide the allocation of low numbers (say, less
> than 100). People could say what number they'd like, and if there are any
> overlaps, discussion could decide who would get it. If there were any major
> irreconcilable differences, maybe the winner could be decided via auction or
> something. And if someone were shy or unavailable to participate, someone
> could nominate them to get a particular low number or somewhere in a range.
> After maybe a week of discussion, the numbers could be locked-in and
> guaranteed to be reserved for each person. Then for higher numbers, up
> through 9999, there could be a simple automated system (news would be too
> much hassle for that big of a range).
>
> Does that sound like the fairest way?
Well, short of slurping all the old ATL and RTL posts, and automatically
assigning lugnet id's based on the oldest post from each e-mail id, it sounds
pretty reasonable to me. As long as you randomized the exact numbers after
the selection process, so there was no implied ranking. Since the numbers
would end up describing a list the top 100 online fans of LEGO. Oh, except
you should be #1 and Suzanne should be #2.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Perhaps we could do something along these lines (and this would only be a
> > one-time thing for the initial low numbers): Invite people to participate
> > in a public discussion to decide the allocation of low numbers (say, less
> > than 100). People could say what number they'd like, and if there are any
> > overlaps, discussion could decide who would get it. If there were any major
> > irreconcilable differences, maybe the winner could be decided via auction or
> > something. And if someone were shy or unavailable to participate, someone
> > could nominate them to get a particular low number or somewhere in a range.
> > After maybe a week of discussion, the numbers could be locked-in and
> > guaranteed to be reserved for each person. Then for higher numbers, up
> > through 9999, there could be a simple automated system (news would be too
> > much hassle for that big of a range).
> >
> > Does that sound like the fairest way?
>
> Well, short of slurping all the old ATL and RTL posts, and automatically
> assigning lugnet id's based on the oldest post from each e-mail id, it sounds
> pretty reasonable to me. As long as you randomized the exact numbers after
> the selection process, so there was no implied ranking. Since the numbers
> would end up describing a list the top 100 online fans of LEGO. Oh, except
> you should be #1 and Suzanne should be #2.
>
> Steve
Do you still have AucZilla I records, that goes back a ways to a number
of early Lego people.
--
Paul Foster
http://reality.sgi.com/foster_stco/lego.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I think for continuity's sake, the numbers should all have the same number of
digits. Having some with on, some with two or three would be confusing. But
I guess you could always do the 005, 083 thing. Hmm...who gets 007?
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> Here are some possibilities:
>
> - One possibility is simply to start at 1 and count upward on a first-
> come, first-serve basis, one number at a time. (I think this might
> be what ICQ does...?) Whatever number ya get, ya got, and that's that.
>
> - Another possibility is a variant of that where you get to choose your
> number from a list of the lowest 100 available numbers. (This would
> allow the superstitious among us to avoid scary numbers like 13, 666,
> or 7734 -- or to have a better chance at getting something containing
> a favorite or lucky number, like 23, 69, or 7777.)
>
> - Still another possibility is a variant of both of those, where certain
> numeric ranges are reserved for or allocated to old-timers. For
> example, anything in the range 1-9 might be allocated to a few really
> old-timers from the old 1993-94 days, and anything in the range 10-99
> might most appropriately be allocated to old-timers from 1993-96, etc.
> Anything above 100, I think, gets a bit tricky to start figure out who
> gets what.
>
> All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
>
> Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
>
> --Todd
>
> [followups set to lugnet.admin.general]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Who gets 007?...easy....the person who can do the best imitation of Bond
Here's my attempt....
"The name's Bond.....James Bond..."
How's that?....I challenge anyone to beat that.
Sanjay
Patricia Schempp wrote in message <377C5D34.B5DD412@clemson.edu>...
> I think for continuity's sake, the numbers should all have the same number • of
> digits. Having some with on, some with two or three would be confusing. • But
> I guess you could always do the 005, 083 thing. Hmm...who gets 007?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Now, here's mine....
"You know you're the only woman in my life, Moneypenny..."
Do I win? Mine had more words in it.
-Tom McD.
when replying, note that Q never made plastic explosive that looked like
spamcake.
In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> Who gets 007?...easy....the person who can do the best imitation of Bond
>
> Here's my attempt....
>
> "The name's Bond.....James Bond..."
>
> How's that?....I challenge anyone to beat that.
>
>
> Sanjay
>
>
> Patricia Schempp wrote in message <377C5D34.B5DD412@clemson.edu>...
> > I think for continuity's sake, the numbers should all have the same number • of
> > digits. Having some with on, some with two or three would be confusing. • But
> > I guess you could always do the 005, 083 thing. Hmm...who gets 007?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Patricia Schempp writes:
> I think for continuity's sake, the numbers should all have the same
> number of digits. Having some with on, some with two or three would
> be confusing. But I guess you could always do the 005, 083 thing.
> Hmm...who gets 007?
That would be nice, but the only way to guarantee that all the numbers
have the same number of digits is either to start at a really, really
high number and ignore all lower numbers, or pre-fix the number of digits
at something large -- definitely more than 3.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> Here are some possibilities:
[snip - does any bother to do this anymore?]
> All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
>
> Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
>
> --Todd
Well from what I've read so far, people do care. So let me throw out another
possibility - CLSotW numbers - it covers the majoirty of "oldtimers", they
already exist in LUGNET and could be "programmed" to a direct link to the
CLSotW archives. And just so there is no misunderstanding, yes I was CLSotW
Number 1 but Todd should have Number 1, I would use the Number 35 (my second
win - I had to look up the number). Multiple winners could only choose one of
their CLSotW numbers, the other would be available to "oldtimers".
Of course you would have to consider setting a block of numbers aside for the
future. And if someone already had a number, consider letting them change
their number to the CLSotW number.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Ed Jones writes:
> [interesting ideas snipped]
>
> [...] And if someone already had a number, consider letting them change
> their number to the CLSotW number.
Heh heh, whoops, I guess I didn't make the uniquess aspect clear. :-)
There aren't any circumstances[1] where someone would ever be able to
change their number, once they've chosen it. The whole point of making
unique #'s in the first place is that they're permanent, one per person.
Kind of like social security or driver's license numbers, only I think I
may have hear rumors at one time that because of some computer glitch,
SS#'s aren't unique in 100% of the cases (but it was always inteded that
they be unique).
--Todd
[1] Except maybe if someone is part of a witness protection program and is
assigned a new identity by the government. But then in that case, they could
never say, so the old "them" would actually be dead and the new "them" would
actually be a new person, philosophically speaking.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Ed Jones writes:
> Well from what I've read so far, people do care. So let me throw out another
> possibility - CLSotW numbers - it covers the majoirty of "oldtimers", they
> already exist in LUGNET and could be "programmed" to a direct link to the
> CLSotW archives. And just so there is no misunderstanding, yes I was CLSotW
> Number 1 but Todd should have Number 1, I would use the Number 35 (my second
> win - I had to look up the number). Multiple winners could only choose one of
> their CLSotW numbers, the other would be available to "oldtimers".
I like that idea! It gives me a chance at some nice numbers: 44 and 100 :)
--Bram
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I care. I think you should hand out numbers in strict numerical order
based on when you first started using Lugnet.
That would make you #0, Suzanne #1 and me #2. I've always wanted to be a
#2.
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I care. I think you should hand out numbers in strict numerical order
> based on when you first started using Lugnet.
Which part of it -- I assume you mean the news part? By "using" do you mean
posting to?
I have to say, that option has a lot of attractiveness simply for its
straightforwardness, objectiveness, and "ruthless fairness."
But I didn't want to list that as a viable option because it kind of assumes
that everyone who's posted will eventually sign up for an actual membership.
And while that's always a -hope-, it certainly can't be an assumption. It
would be insulting to people to make that assumption. On the other hand, it
probably wouldn't hurt to reserve the numbers for if/when someone finally
decided to take the leap.
Generating such a list, in order, would be fairly straightforward. I wonder
how you identify such people on-the-fly as they later sign up, to make sure
that they get their reserved low number rather than the lowest currently
available non-reserved number...?
What about people who aren't with us anymore? For example, Gary Louie...
It would leave a gap, although this certainly could be used as a memorial
page if someone wanted to maintain one.
BTW, I suppose if we get under the hood and have a look, we'll find that
actually quite a few old-timer ATL/RTL'ers appeared here back in September,
because all of them that I could find from searching RTL archives were
contacted and invited over on the first or second day (in addition to the
whole of RTL at that time). I'd forgotten about that.
Hmm. Well, Suz and I are headed over to The Construction Site tonight to
check out the new stuff they just got in, but maybe later or tomorrow morning
I can make a list of people in posting-appearance order, and we can see how
reasonable that looks.
> That would make you #0, Suzanne #1 and me #2. I've always wanted to be a
> #2.
You've always wanted to be a #2? Heh heh, OK, just to be polite, I'm going
to guess that you meant a #2 Ticonderoga Pencil. ;-)
(For the record for anyone curious about why Larry is so sure about being
the third person: He helped test the inital pre-newsserver newsserver while
things were still in the very early feasability stages back in August of '98).
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I care. I think you should hand out numbers in strict numerical order
> > based on when you first started using Lugnet.
>
> Which part of it -- I assume you mean the news part? By "using" do you mean
> posting to?
Yes. You said below what I am about to say: I was the first person other
than you to post to the now no longer extant version of the news
server... I can't prove it because all those posts were dumped and we
started over, they all were test posts, essentially. That was back in
July or August of last year, I forget.
I can't even pull out posts from my sent messages folder to "prove" it
(or prove that I know how to fake what posts look like) since that was
three computers ago and I tend not to migrate draft folders.
> You've always wanted to be a #2? Heh heh, OK, just to be polite, I'm going
> to guess that you meant a #2 Ticonderoga Pencil. ;-)
No no, #2 ala Robert Wagner in Spy Who Shagged me. Not that you're evil,
mind you, but you DO have some cool toys just like Dr. Evil does... you
even have a space base or two.
> (For the record for anyone curious about why Larry is so sure about being
> the third person: He helped test the inital pre-newsserver newsserver while
> things were still in the very early feasability stages back in August of '98).
For the record it was actually my argument that Lugnet needed to
establish brand identity and soon, and that using "free" available
software would be a faster way to get there than writing the perfect
from scratch system, and that a news server was a great place to start,
that got Lugnet, the newssite, started. Or so I'd like to think.
I recall strongly tooling around Boston together in Todd's Saturn
passionately making that case, while philosophising on the Cathedral vs.
Bazaar software development models.
It worked.
You're all welcome.
Hence my claim to #2 despite not having the bonafides of 1993 ATL
participation. Lugnet is a new thing, a clean break is justified and
required.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> [...]
> > (For the record for anyone curious about why Larry is so sure about
> > being the third person: He helped test the inital pre-newsserver
> > newsserver while things were still in the very early feasability
> > stages back in August of '98).
>
> For the record it was actually my argument that Lugnet needed to
> establish brand identity and soon, and that using "free" available
> software would be a faster way to get there than writing the perfect
> from scratch system, and that a news server was a great place to start,
> that got Lugnet, the newssite, started. Or so I'd like to think.
>
> I recall strongly tooling around Boston together in Todd's Saturn
> passionately making that case, while philosophising on the Cathedral vs.
> Bazaar software development models.
>
> It worked.
>
> You're all welcome.
> [...]
Heh heh. OK, here's the fully story...
Larry had a *very* positive impact, to be sure. Very important and helpful
discussion. It's what he does for a living, too, basically (or did, I'm not
sure). Anyway, I remember writing Larry afterwards and thanking him for his
opinions. But in my mind we were really talking more about buying vs.
building in the much larger DBMS sense, rather than just NNTP news (or so I
remember). When we chewed the fat for 6+ hours about all that fun stuff on
August 27 (1998), I was already, at that point, on a "mission from god" to
get the LUGNET newsserver up and running as efficiently as possible,
whatever the most reasonable path to that was. At that point, I certainly
wasn't considering writing my own NNTP server anymore, although on August 9
the idea did occur to me, given how simple NNML is. :-)
The most potent "spark"/idea that ignited the thought process which led to
seriously considering running an NNTP newsserver came on August 9 while
reading an O'Reilly UNIX book -- although it really took a couple days of
testing before it all sunk in. By the time Larry and I met and talked about
stuff at the end of August, the "test" newsserver (named NNML, a Q&D Perl
library for doing NNTP) had been running for 2 1/2 weeks and was actively
still running but well on its way to being thrown out and replaced by a
"real" newsserver (named CNews), which, if Larry remembers in the car as we
were headed East over the bridge back toward his hotel, I was ranting about
how frustrated I was with some of the CNews installation and configuration
issues, and was almost considering installing INN instead.
Anyway -- not to detract from Larry's impact -- which was, without a doubt,
very positive -- but in my mind, if any one person really deserves credit
for lobbying in favor of a simple NNTP approach as opposed to a homebrew
approach, it would have to be Paul Gyugyi, who, on December 1, 1997, after
having read the LUGNET Plan document, stated:
"When I first saw your post, I was worried you were re-inventing
usenet. I've seen a few web-based message boards, and they really
lack the features I've come to expect from news readers like emacs's
gnus, such as topic and body searches, kill files, etc. So I hope
you'll just run a netnews server, similar to the way microsoft runs
a newsserver for microsoft-related groups."
to which I replied:
"I was wondering about that. I seem to remember hearing about
MS-specific ng's on their servers somewhere back when I was doing
NT GUI development. I think one of the guys at work tried connecting
but the company firewall didn't allow it for some reason. Apart from
any hosting issues, are there any client setup and configuration
issues? Like, I mean, can a 6-year-old kid set it up? Can people
switch easily between news servers? Can things like 'tin' and 'trn'
connect to arbitrary news servers from inside a telnet shell, or do
only things like Netscape and MSIE work for that? How about Lynx?
If someone runs their own news server, can they guarantee that posts
aren't forged by people? Sorry for all the questions...but since you
brought it up... :-)"
and that haunted me for several months. And it's what eventually led on
August 9 (only 6 days after we got the server set up) to consider trying out
NNTP and seeing where it lead. Before Paul's message, my mindset about NNTP
had been "yuck, that's old." But of course Paul was right.
Whew. :)
--Todd
p.s. Many many thanks to Larry and Mike and Sarah and others who
volunteered their time in August of last summer to help test the intial
setups, which proved that it all would be possible and workable.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> p.s. Many many thanks to Larry and Mike and Sarah and others who
> volunteered their time in August of last summer to help test the intial
> setups, which proved that it all would be possible and workable.
Yeah, well, I still want 69. <g>
Barring that, I'd like the number I'd get according to the order
people began posting to Lugnet, which I would imagine would be
somewhere less than 20, maybe even less than 10.
Lugnet IS new, and just like I don't think of Lugnet as an extension
of the pile of sludge that is RTL now, I don't really think of it as
something that owes its existence to RTL. Given that, tying numbers
(if you aren't going to go random or sequential with respect to Lugnet
postings/joinings) to old-time RTL/ATL posting seems a little silly.
I'd be more likely to see the proposal Ed had as "fair" than anything
else, if it isn't going to be an internal Lugnet-related thing.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - A great new resource for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
> [...]
Someone just wrote in and asked,
"I just joined/registered with LUGNET, ... why are membership numbers
being proposed?"
This is a good question, and may well be a commonly wondered question at
this point, so I'm posting the answer here and bcc'ing via e-mail the person
who wrote in the question.
The answer is: Because there isn't yet such a thing as LUGNET memberships.
There are users (registered and unregistered) but no members.
The registration (or news-posting setup) process that you see now is simply
a request form for newsgroup-posting privileges. Memberships are something
totally different -- on a whole different level of functionality -- which
will start out simple and grow over time to do zillions of cool things.
Anyone with deep curiousity about some of the details is invited to read the
LUGNET Plan document, which is still fairly accurate and relevant:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/
So anyway, the newsgroup system here and the website so far represent only
about 10% of what LUGNET will grow to be over the next 3-10 years. When
memberships are added this summer, that will jump to about 20% then of the
whole thing. The Plan document covers things up through about roughly 50%.
--Todd
[crossposted to lugnet.general; followups to lugnet.admin.general]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
After being away for the weekend of the 4th and coming back and reading
through the dozens of posts on this, I just said "Whew, I gotta go on vacation
longer so I can miss stuff like this more often" ;-)
Todd, I've changed my mind about this(1) and it seems like the best case that
can be made is that you give out desired numbers to those whom you feel have
helped out as thanks to them for specific Lugnet projects, and everyone else
in order of appearance, just like in the movies. Ask each person whom you feel
should get one via private email. Once you've done that, then just crank out
the rest.
A fact of life is that some movie credits are just less glamorous than others
due to the amount of participation in a film. But I could live with the credit
"Spamcake Cop #1", "Man In Line" or "109". I was a Lugnet beta tester, at the
very end of beta testing, but that and $1.25 will get me a cup o' joe at
Denny's. :) Lugnet has been much more helpful to me that I have been to it.
-Tom McD.
when replying, "How Am I Driving? 1 800 EAT SPAMCAKE"
(1) yes, that was that sudden sound which sounded like a dashboard cracking on
a hot summer day
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> After being away for the weekend of the 4th and coming back and reading
> through the dozens of posts on this, I just said "Whew, I gotta go on
> vacation longer so I can miss stuff like this more often" ;-)
LOL! I'd like to miss a few threads once in a while as well. :-)
> Todd, I've changed my mind about this(1) and it seems like the best case
> that can be made is that you give out desired numbers to those whom you
> feel have helped out as thanks to them for specific Lugnet projects, and
> everyone else in order of appearance, just like in the movies. Ask each
> person whom you feel should get one via private email. Once you've done
> that, then just crank out the rest.
>
> A fact of life is that some movie credits are just less glamorous than
> others due to the amount of participation in a film. But I could live
> with the credit "Spamcake Cop #1", "Man In Line" or "109". I was a Lugnet
> beta tester, at the very end of beta testing, but that and $1.25 will get
> me a cup o' joe at Denny's. :) Lugnet has been much more helpful to me
> that I have been to it.
After a week of cogitating on the complexity of all of this (especially with
Selçuk's recent insights), I agree that at least for the time being, things
will be much more "doable" with purely numeric ID-#'s. It'll always be
possible to add string-based member-ID's later if needed. But that still
needs a lot more long-term thinkage on it before anything could be committed
to safely, so it's just getting in the way at this point.
So how does this sound?-- We go with the original plan, which was increasing
numbers on a first-come-first-serve basis, but where you get to pick from
the N lowest currently available numbers. I was thinking N=100 originally,
but given what people said about set numbers, maybe N=10000 makes more sense
for ID's <10000, and N=100 for ID's >=10000. Anyway, that would let Mike
get 69 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 69. And it would
let Larry get 3 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 3. And
so on and so on...
In terms of opening the floodgates to everyone going in and picking a number,
it would work like this:
You'll fill out a form online somewhere which is a membership application.
It'll tell you where to snail-mail a sheet of paper which you sign stating
that you agree to the Terms of Use for the site and that you're not
submitting fraudulent information about your name or your address, etc.;
and with that you'll also include your membership fee (which you get to pick
the amount based on what the service is worth to you). When we receive this
via snail mail, we'll enter the data into the computer, and you'll get an
e-mail saying that you're all set to proceed with the final sign-up. All
you have to do then is pick a member-ID# from a list of available #'s, and
then you're all set.
As to what you can actually *do* once you have a member-ID#, well, there
won't be much at first, so it won't appeal to many people for a while. But
over time it'll get cooler.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> And it would
> let Larry get 3 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 3. And
> so on and so on...
But I want #2 not #3 ;-) More importantly, what does "signed up" in this
context mean? Given my circumstances, there may be no way, depending on
when you set this up, that I can get in ahead 50 other people. I still
think some sort of "who posted first" rather than "who can get you a
form back the fastest", is fairer.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. And it's ultimately your
decision, but I'm still going to whinge until you actually say "thats
it, I decided".
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> But I want #2 not #3 ;-) More importantly, what does "signed up" in this
> context mean? Given my circumstances, there may be no way, depending on
> when you set this up, that I can get in ahead 50 other people. I still
> think some sort of "who posted first" rather than "who can get you a
> form back the fastest", is fairer.
>
> Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. And it's ultimately your
> decision, but I'm still going to whinge until you actually say "thats
> it, I decided".
Maybe "who posted first" could be a prioritizer in case of contentions.
Oh well, still several days before anything needs to be put in stone.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Todd Lehman wrote:
> > And it would
> > let Larry get 3 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 3. And
> > so on and so on...
>
> But I want #2 not #3 ;-) More importantly, what does "signed up" in this
> context mean? Given my circumstances, there may be no way, depending on
> when you set this up, that I can get in ahead 50 other people. I still
> think some sort of "who posted first" rather than "who can get you a
> form back the fastest", is fairer.
>
> Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. And it's ultimately your
> decision, but I'm still going to whinge until you actually say "thats
> it, I decided".
Well, I wouldn't call it a mountain, maybe a trash heap. :')
But is it just me, or is this whole clamoring for "prime" numbers getting just
a little out of hand. Who was the first to post? Who helped Todd the most?
Yada Yada Yada Yada.
Folks, he's trying to run a service here, not immoratalize those who would be
immortalized. I can see it now: "but in deja news it shows my post was before
your posts so I should have gotten a lower number". "Yeah but I gave him
advice on widgey widges that he's using to run LUGNET so I should have a lower
number"
Todd, I could be wrong, but you could be opening up a whole can of kvetching
here. I really don't think you started LUGNET to referee a fight for the low
numbers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Ed Jones writes:
> Well, I wouldn't call it a mountain, maybe a trash heap. :')
>
> But is it just me, or is this whole clamoring for "prime" numbers getting
> just >a little out of hand. Who was the first to post? Who helped Todd
> the most? Yada Yada Yada Yada.
>
> Folks, he's trying to run a service here, not immoratalize those who would
> be immortalized. I can see it now: "but in deja news it shows my post
> was before your posts so I should have gotten a lower number". "Yeah but
> I gave him advice on widgey widges that he's using to run LUGNET so I
> should have a lower number"
>
> Todd, I could be wrong, but you could be opening up a whole can of
> kvetching here. I really don't think you started LUGNET to referee a
> fight for the low numbers.
No, that's right. If people get the number they want, that's really great.
But if they don't, I don't really care (much). But I *do* care (a lot) that
people be given the choice to -avoid- certain numbers that they don't want.
That is, I would never stick someone with 13 or 1313 or 666 if they didn't
want it. (And gosh, who knows, someone might even be too embarrassed to
get 69 or 99.) So that's really the gist and motivation behind making the
numberings non-100%-system-assigned. Definitely don't need this to turn
into a big fight for status-hood. Opening up the lowest 10000 numbers at
first (rather than the lower 100) is probably a good way to combat that --
because it's going to take a *long* time to fill up 10000 slots, and there's
no way that someone with the number 7 can claim they were here before someone
with the number 6075.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
A far easier numbering system would be to use segments, ie an ID could be
made up of subparts that could be used for future Lugnet marketing purposes,
give aways and localised promotions.
For instance the segments could include: Country of Origin, Location, Theme
of interest, Secondary Theme of interest, Salary Range (in US Dollars),
number of LEGO pieces in collection, Unique identifier
Assuming that each segment comprises of 7 digits then for say Rich Kidd who
lives in East Dakota, US, is interested in Znap and Paradisa, has a salary
in the $50, 000 to $75,000 range, has 3,405 LEGO pieces and is allocated a
unique id of 6344256 his number would be
5426722-1236543-9386574-6218900-1190876-6344256
This is by far a much more efficient, managable, and easier to understand
numbering system than any other to date.
Sanjay
(TIC of course)
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> No, that's right. If people get the number they want, that's really great.
> But if they don't, I don't really care (much). But I *do* care (a lot) • that
> people be given the choice to -avoid- certain numbers that they don't want.
> That is, I would never stick someone with 13 or 1313 or 666 if they didn't
> want it. (And gosh, who knows, someone might even be too embarrassed to
> get 69 or 99.) So that's really the gist and motivation behind making the
> numberings non-100%-system-assigned. Definitely don't need this to turn
> into a big fight for status-hood. Opening up the lowest 10000 numbers at
> first (rather than the lower 100) is probably a good way to combat that --
> because it's going to take a *long* time to fill up 10000 slots, and • there's
> no way that someone with the number 7 can claim they were here before • someone
> with the number 6075.
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> A far easier numbering system would be to use segments, ie an ID could be
> made up of subparts that could be used for future Lugnet marketing purposes,
> give aways and localised promotions.
>
> For instance the segments could include: Country of Origin, Location, Theme
> of interest, Secondary Theme of interest, Salary Range (in US Dollars),
> number of LEGO pieces in collection, Unique identifier
>
> Assuming that each segment comprises of 7 digits then for say Rich Kidd who
> lives in East Dakota, US, is interested in Znap and Paradisa, has a salary
> in the $50, 000 to $75,000 range, has 3,405 LEGO pieces and is allocated a
> unique id of 6344256 his number would be
>
> 5426722-1236543-9386574-6218900-1190876-6344256
Thanks for your MasterCard # Sanjay! :D
> This is by far a much more efficient, managable, and easier to understand
> numbering system than any other to date.
You mean some sort of unique integer based on the attributes of someone's
profile? I could see that, but having considered this idea in my only real job-
related database project of music involving info about 23,000+ songs I canned
this idea. The sole reason being that things change where I work, so integers
would have to be routinely reassigned. Todd has already said a number is
permanent once assigned so he won't want that either because we know Rich
Kidd's dad will someday come to his senses and move to NZ, Rich himself
accumulates more pieces, and will wisely decide that space is his new favorite
theme - thus any relevant integer based on those attributes will have to
change.
But suppose that number is based on that and doesn't change once established?
One drawback is that of privacy. What sort of info do I provide to establish
such a number?
Just a thought..
> > But if they don't, I don't really care (much). But I *do* care (a lot) • that
> > people be given the choice to -avoid- certain numbers that they don't want.
> > That is, I would never stick someone with 13 or 1313 or 666 if they didn't
> > want it. (And gosh, who knows, someone might even be too embarrassed to
> > get 69 or 99.)
I personally have a fear of the number 290832420987087268751 ;-)
> > So that's really the gist and motivation behind making the
> > numberings non-100%-system-assigned. Definitely don't need this to turn
> > into a big fight for status-hood. Opening up the lowest 10000 numbers at
> > first (rather than the lower 100) is probably a good way to combat that --
> > because it's going to take a *long* time to fill up 10000 slots, and • there's
> > no way that someone with the number 7 can claim they were here before • someone
> > with the number 6075.
Is it too early to start staking claims on numbers on an official list either
privately or publicly?
-Tom McD.
when replying, note that the lowest grades of "burger" will contains upwards
of 10% spamcake.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I agree with Ed on this one....if people start using arguments like who
posted the first post or who argued the first argument or who boobed with
the first blooper then things will really get out of hand.
An easier option, one that will guarantee to sort out the faithful from the
pretentious is to have a public flogging of all those who want "hard to get"
numbers. If those people last the distance then clearly they deserve the
numbers they seek. If they don't last then perhaps their collections can be
donated to Lugnet Corporation.
Sanjay
(TIC of course)
Ed Jones wrote in message ...
> But is it just me, or is this whole clamoring for "prime" numbers getting • just
> a little out of hand. Who was the first to post? Who helped Todd the • most?
> Yada Yada Yada Yada.
>
> Folks, he's trying to run a service here, not immoratalize those who would • be
> immortalized. I can see it now: "but in deja news it shows my post was • before
> your posts so I should have gotten a lower number". "Yeah but I gave him
> advice on widgey widges that he's using to run LUGNET so I should have a • lower
> number"
>
> Todd, I could be wrong, but you could be opening up a whole can of • kvetching
> here. I really don't think you started LUGNET to referee a fight for the • low
> numbers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> So how does this sound?-- We go with the original plan, which was increasing
> numbers on a first-come-first-serve basis, but where you get to pick from
> the N lowest currently available numbers. I was thinking N=100 originally,
> but given what people said about set numbers, maybe N=10000 makes more sense
> for ID's <10000, and N=100 for ID's >=10000. Anyway, that would let Mike
> get 69 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 69. And it would
> let Larry get 3 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 3. And
> so on and so on...
Sounds good. Go ahead and wipe my AucZILLA credit slate clean and
lemme know where to send anything else. We'll just figure me not
cashing that credit in as my however much Y I want to send in addition
to X.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom McDonald <radiotitan@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> Todd, I've changed my mind about this(1) and it seems like the best case that
> can be made is that you give out desired numbers to those whom you feel have
> helped out as thanks to them for specific Lugnet projects, and everyone else
> in order of appearance, just like in the movies. Ask each person whom you feel
> should get one via private email. Once you've done that, then just crank out
> the rest.
I'd kinda like a number that would make me seem like the slightly
over-the-hill but still big-name actor who has a decent-sized role.
You know, the guy who is always "and Name" at the end of the intro to
the tv show.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> I'd kinda like a number that would make me seem like the slightly
> over-the-hill but still big-name actor who has a decent-sized role.
> You know, the guy who is always "and Name" at the end of the intro to
> the tv show.
You mean like Russell Johnson as The Professor on Gilligan? He'd have a number
like 3.14159265...
Or maybe like Lee Majors with a number like 6,000,000?
Perhaps 51 for Ephram Zymbalist Jr. ?
-Tom McD.
when replying, some newer CD-RW's will actually burn a spamcake but the smell
is horrible.
| | | | | | |
