Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:16:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
