| |
Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
Here are some possibilities:
- One possibility is simply to start at 1 and count upward on a first-
come, first-serve basis, one number at a time. (I think this might
be what ICQ does...?) Whatever number ya get, ya got, and that's that.
- Another possibility is a variant of that where you get to choose your
number from a list of the lowest 100 available numbers. (This would
allow the superstitious among us to avoid scary numbers like 13, 666,
or 7734 -- or to have a better chance at getting something containing
a favorite or lucky number, like 23, 69, or 7777.)
- 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.
All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
--Todd
[followups set to lugnet.admin.general]
|
|
Message has 9 Replies:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| You could end up with a bidding war similar to personalised car licence plates. Numbers like 1, 13 and dare I say it 69 may raise a lot of interest. Then again this could be a good thing if people are prepared to pay for these numbers via an auction (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| 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 much sought after. You could auction them off to raise money for LUGNET. This method would be (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | 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)
| | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| I think for continuity's sake, the numbers should all have the same number of digits. Having some with on, some with two or three would be confusing. But I guess you could always do the 005, 083 thing. Hmm...who gets 007? (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) [snip - does any bother to do this anymore?] (...) Well from what I've read so far, people do care. So let me throw out another possibility - CLSotW numbers - it covers the majoirty of "oldtimers", they already exist in LUGNET and could be (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | 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)
| | | 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
