Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:33:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
814 times
|
| |
|
|
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]
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| 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 (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) 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 -- (...) (26 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 (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
