Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 17:49:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
479 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
