Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:35:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
815 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) I don't necessarily agree that we should just pass out incremented numbers when we have the ability to do otherwise. (...) What if a temporary newsgroup was made where people could hash it out amongst themselves, with impasses settled by (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.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
|
|
|
|
