 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
|
(...) I agree with this. I've been around longer than some, not as long as others. I'd probably rank among the earliest people to use Lugnet, and probably be in the top 100 posters, I suppose. I see Lugnet as something that has brought back some (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) Why not just make this whole thing moot and just assign numbers in a random or pseudo-random lottery? Have each person apply for a number, and have a server doohicky spit out a random number from an available pool. I think we're attaching far (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
|
(...) Well, if they're still generally increasing slowly and the randomness comes from a small pool of lowest-available numbers rather than a large pool of, say, 32-bit integers, then that would certainly work too. (...) This is something I've been (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
|
(...) Whoops, I think I accidentally didn't not make a double-negative there. --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
