Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 00:23:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> After being away for the weekend of the 4th and coming back and reading
> through the dozens of posts on this, I just said "Whew, I gotta go on
> vacation longer so I can miss stuff like this more often" ;-)
LOL! I'd like to miss a few threads once in a while as well. :-)
> Todd, I've changed my mind about this(1) and it seems like the best case
> that can be made is that you give out desired numbers to those whom you
> feel have helped out as thanks to them for specific Lugnet projects, and
> everyone else in order of appearance, just like in the movies. Ask each
> person whom you feel should get one via private email. Once you've done
> that, then just crank out the rest.
>
> A fact of life is that some movie credits are just less glamorous than
> others due to the amount of participation in a film. But I could live
> with the credit "Spamcake Cop #1", "Man In Line" or "109". I was a Lugnet
> beta tester, at the very end of beta testing, but that and $1.25 will get
> me a cup o' joe at Denny's. :) Lugnet has been much more helpful to me
> that I have been to it.
After a week of cogitating on the complexity of all of this (especially with
Selçuk's recent insights), I agree that at least for the time being, things
will be much more "doable" with purely numeric ID-#'s. It'll always be
possible to add string-based member-ID's later if needed. But that still
needs a lot more long-term thinkage on it before anything could be committed
to safely, so it's just getting in the way at this point.
So how does this sound?-- We go with the original plan, which was increasing
numbers on a first-come-first-serve basis, but where you get to pick from
the N lowest currently available numbers. I was thinking N=100 originally,
but given what people said about set numbers, maybe N=10000 makes more sense
for ID's <10000, and N=100 for ID's >=10000. Anyway, that would let Mike
get 69 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 69. And it would
let Larry get 3 if he signed up earlier than anyone else who wanted 3. And
so on and so on...
In terms of opening the floodgates to everyone going in and picking a number,
it would work like this:
You'll fill out a form online somewhere which is a membership application.
It'll tell you where to snail-mail a sheet of paper which you sign stating
that you agree to the Terms of Use for the site and that you're not
submitting fraudulent information about your name or your address, etc.;
and with that you'll also include your membership fee (which you get to pick
the amount based on what the service is worth to you). When we receive this
via snail mail, we'll enter the data into the computer, and you'll get an
e-mail saying that you're all set to proceed with the final sign-up. All
you have to do then is pick a member-ID# from a list of available #'s, and
then you're all set.
As to what you can actually *do* once you have a member-ID#, well, there
won't be much at first, so it won't appeal to many people for a while. But
over time it'll get cooler.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) But I want #2 not #3 ;-) More importantly, what does "signed up" in this context mean? Given my circumstances, there may be no way, depending on when you set this up, that I can get in ahead 50 other people. I still think some sort of "who (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) Sounds good. Go ahead and wipe my AucZILLA credit slate clean and lemme know where to send anything else. We'll just figure me not cashing that credit in as my however much Y I want to send in addition to X. (26 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) After being away for the weekend of the 4th and coming back and reading through the dozens of posts on this, I just said "Whew, I gotta go on vacation longer so I can miss stuff like this more often" ;-) Todd, I've changed my mind about (...) (26 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
