Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 01:07:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I care. I think you should hand out numbers in strict numerical order
> based on when you first started using Lugnet.
Which part of it -- I assume you mean the news part? By "using" do you mean
posting to?
I have to say, that option has a lot of attractiveness simply for its
straightforwardness, objectiveness, and "ruthless fairness."
But I didn't want to list that as a viable option because it kind of assumes
that everyone who's posted will eventually sign up for an actual membership.
And while that's always a -hope-, it certainly can't be an assumption. It
would be insulting to people to make that assumption. On the other hand, it
probably wouldn't hurt to reserve the numbers for if/when someone finally
decided to take the leap.
Generating such a list, in order, would be fairly straightforward. I wonder
how you identify such people on-the-fly as they later sign up, to make sure
that they get their reserved low number rather than the lowest currently
available non-reserved number...?
What about people who aren't with us anymore? For example, Gary Louie...
It would leave a gap, although this certainly could be used as a memorial
page if someone wanted to maintain one.
BTW, I suppose if we get under the hood and have a look, we'll find that
actually quite a few old-timer ATL/RTL'ers appeared here back in September,
because all of them that I could find from searching RTL archives were
contacted and invited over on the first or second day (in addition to the
whole of RTL at that time). I'd forgotten about that.
Hmm. Well, Suz and I are headed over to The Construction Site tonight to
check out the new stuff they just got in, but maybe later or tomorrow morning
I can make a list of people in posting-appearance order, and we can see how
reasonable that looks.
> That would make you #0, Suzanne #1 and me #2. I've always wanted to be a
> #2.
You've always wanted to be a #2? Heh heh, OK, just to be polite, I'm going
to guess that you meant a #2 Ticonderoga Pencil. ;-)
(For the record for anyone curious about why Larry is so sure about being
the third person: He helped test the inital pre-newsserver newsserver while
things were still in the very early feasability stages back in August of '98).
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) Yes. You said below what I am about to say: I was the first person other than you to post to the now no longer extant version of the news server... I can't prove it because all those posts were dumped and we started over, they all were test (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| I care. I think you should hand out numbers in strict numerical order based on when you first started using Lugnet. That would make you #0, Suzanne #1 and me #2. I've always wanted to be a #2. (...) (25 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
