Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 00:49:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
449 times
|
| |
|
|
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]
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| Mike Walsh wrote in message ... (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Allocation of member #'s
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
