VGCollect Secret Santa Feedback

[sworddude]

At the very end of the day though nobody is forced to go over the budget. you can stick to the 60$ budget as stated. if you go above that more power to you. especially since it's hard to prove + in combination with market prices varying from day to day. and prices for stuff really being dependent on where or when you get your stuff.

Since you can't really prove how much each invidual spend for them to spend an excessive amount, why this topic? Differences will always exist since 2nd hand goods can vary in price big time. For this reason alone it's kinda pointless conversation.If people go below 60$ with a noticable margin, yes that's an issue. but I do find it strange that we have a topic for the opposite. Isn't it pretty fun to have a shot at getting stuff over 60$ instead of everyone getting close or a bit over 60$. if people want to give more, more power to em I'd say.

It's been introduced as something to discuss because adhering to a budget is commonplace and expected when participating in gift exchange events. A maximum exists for the same reason that a minimum does—again, to ensure that gifts given and gifts received are equal, both on an individual level and group level. If there is to be no maximum, then why is there a minimum? With this logic, the event could easily be organized as one without any declared budget, leaving participants to freely send gifts of whatever monetary value—however high or low—of their choosing. With that said, I doubt many, if any, would blindly consider participating in a gift exchange with that lack of budget structure. But, based on feedback provided, that sort of format can certainly be explored. It seems you yourself are promoting it, at the very least. As you've been saying, there is no way for anyone to verify the funds spend for another's gift purchases, so perhaps ignoring a budget altogether—and instead simply asking participants to give what they think is a suitable amount—is more ideal.

The minimum should definitely be there, cause otherwise it's actually going to be total chaos on what each and everyone is going to get. Furthermore I think the minimum should have different guide lines than going over said budget.

if the budget is 60$ the market value has to be close to that. as in at the very least over 50$ average price charting market value. or sold listing if there ain't much info out there or if the condition is far better than the rest with say cardboard releases.

I can see market value being a bit less depending on how said individual gets the games, is in a rush etc. you might pay over market value for stuff that's available at the time.

from what I've seen in this year. it seems there where no issues in this department it was at the very least pretty much spot on with price charting average prices.

[puddingm]

If people go below 60$ with a noticable margin, yes that's an issue. but I do find it strange that we have a topic for the opposite. Isn't it pretty fun to have a shot at getting stuff over 60$ instead of everyone getting close or a bit over 60$. if people want to give more, more power to em I'd say.

Nobody is expecting to get much more than 60$, and nobody should expect to get more if they give more since the budget is 60$. I don't think most have an issue with this and are aware of the finer details.

Agree what what has been mentioned and a lot of the mentioned issues can be prevented and "self-managed" by the participants (which has been pretty good in the past years I think).
However, there are those hiccup moments every now and then. But...it's hard to be perfect though~~

It's technically how ignition365 has stated it in his post (i.e. why the minimum/maximum etc) - although I also don't think it has really been an issue other than the occasional hiccup moments where people had different expectations/understandings etc.

Yeah, the excessively part can make it easy to misinterpret.  Some folks might genuinely feel stick to it, and some might feel it's no pressure to stick to it, but don't send a thousand dollars worth of stuff.

I'm not your mom do what you want, but sending out a thousand dollars worth of stuff, no matter how generous the thought might be, might make the receiver feel guilty for only doing or staying near the limit and it can make the other gifters feel similarly.  I don't think this has really been a problem before on the high end, but it's worth noting that might be the interpretation of excessively.

I will say I have seen in previous years folks not sticking to it as a minimum though.

[dhaabi]

From what I've noticed, many participating members from our community's Secret Santa are longtime, repeating participants. And, I think it's fair to say that (concerning 2023's participants, at the very least) they all put in good effort at selecting thoughtful gifts with a minimum budget in mind. So, I really don't think there is need for us to analyze the statistics regarding gifts' market value prices, because monitoring their gift-spending process only promotes a negative, less trusting view toward participants.

I suppose that, in the end, people here welcome going over-budget (despite a budget being agreed upon as a group) and will instead individually decide how much money they're willing to spend. That is, unless others who may have yet to respond mention otherwise.

Soon, I will introduce a second topic to discuss, but that isn't to say the first topic about the budget can't or shouldn't be revisited at any time if anyone is wanting to share their opinion.

[dhaabi]

Question: Yes or no: shipping costs should be included with the agreed upon spending limit.
Choice 1: Yes. Shipping costs should be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%
Choice 2: No. Shipping costs should not be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%

Of the general questions my feedback form asked, this question was the only to receive 50-50 split results. So, there is clearly a divide among participants' opinions.

However, after the previous topic question about the budget which was discussed at some length, I don't know how pressing this issue is. At first, it seemed to be important, but the discussion about the budget has voiced a majority opinion that there should be no budget. So, if there is no budget, then the matter of shipping being included as part of it or not becomes irrelevant.

Nevertheless, I've introduced it as a matter to discuss. Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?

[Cartagia]

Just to clarify what I'm hearing, are talking maximum budget or minimum budget?  I know that what we've got now are mostly a set of recurring participants who all generally know what to expect, but just based on human nature, the lack of a minimum means that someone will in almost all certainly will really really undershoot the value of what they send.

[dhaabi]

Just to clarify what I'm hearing, are talking maximum budget or minimum budget?  I know that what we've got now are mostly a set of recurring participants who all generally know what to expect, but just based on human nature, the lack of a minimum means that someone will in almost all certainly will really really undershoot the value of what they send.

There isn't a "maximum budget" or a "minimum budget," but instead a budget. Therefore, someone's total money spent is either under-budget or over-budget. From the feedback received in the discussion (ignoring the initial polling results), the budget seems to be either unimportant, unable to be enforced, or both.

I agree that such thinking warrants low-valued gifts being sent, but that seems to be the general opinion. I see only one bare thread of silver lining to the opinion, which is that those who generally sign up are longtime, repeating participants who take care in curating gifts their giftee wants and will appreciate. But, without a budget, it would not be surprising to see the opposite. Such opinion will almost certainly deter anyone interested, both first-time and returning members, from joining in any future event.

Here is a comment I made earlier, which people either don't agree with or may have overlooked:

The 10% and 20% over-budget percentages mentioned are examples and not meant to exclusively apply to VGC's Secret Santa event but instead to all similar events. Obviously, budgets for these sort of gift-giving events vary largely, so that added value may or may not be noticeable. With that said, any over-budget expenses aren't meant to be noticeable, because the funds spent across all parties are meant to be of equal value. If it is noticeable, then too much money was spent.

[sworddude]

Question: Yes or no: shipping costs should be included with the agreed upon spending limit.
Choice 1: Yes. Shipping costs should be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%
Choice 2: No. Shipping costs should not be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%

Of the general questions my feedback form asked, this question was the only to receive 50-50 split results. So, there is clearly a divide among participants' opinions.

However, after the previous topic question about the budget which was discussed at some length, I don't know how pressing this issue is. At first, it seemed to be important, but the discussion about the budget has voiced a majority opinion that there should be no budget. So, if there is no budget, then the matter of shipping being included as part of it or not becomes irrelevant.

Nevertheless, I've introduced it as a matter to discuss. Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?

There should be a budget, it's just that there doesn't have to be much of a guideline if people decide to go over it.

[dhaabi]

However, after the previous topic question about the budget which was discussed at some length, I don't know how pressing this issue is. At first, it seemed to be important, but the discussion about the budget has voiced a majority opinion that there should be no budget. So, if there is no budget, then the matter of shipping being included as part of it or not becomes irrelevant.

There should be a budget, it's just that there doesn't have to be much of a guideline if people decide to go over it.

This goes against the basic principles of both a budget and a gift-exchange event. Budgets are meant to be adhered to as close as possible. Meanwhile, budgets are often set for gift-exchange events so that every participant receives an equal value gift. So, naturally, if one is allowed to go over-budget but is still expected to send a gift of equal value, that allowance should be minimal. If 0% is the agreed-upon budget, then one should aim to keep the additional percentage as low as they can.

I will also mention another comment I previously made:

With that said, if somebody does want to noticeably go over-budget, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from sending additional items outside of the Secret Santa gift-giving exchange. After all, they already have the required shipping information. So, if someone is wanting to send extra gifts or gifts of higher value, we could easily encourage for them to do so separate from the public gift-giving exchange and in private. Or, if items are all wanting to be shipped together in one package to save on shipping costs, items could be clearly marked as may be shared with public and do not share with public. This would allow for everyone who joins any live gift-opening event or who posts publicly about their gifts to all remain within the same general level of value spent and value received.

[dhaabi]

Question: Yes or no: shipping costs should be included with the agreed upon spending limit.
Choice 1: Yes. Shipping costs should be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%
Choice 2: No. Shipping costs should not be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%

Of the general questions my feedback form asked, this question was the only to receive 50-50 split results. So, there is clearly a divide among participants' opinions.

I'm reposting this. I will treat every topic question individually, with no influence from other discussions or polling results. This will allow for a more focused discussion for each issue.

Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?

[Cartagia]

Shipping can be pricey, and I like to give people as much stuff as I can from their lists, so I don't want that biting into the budget.

[sworddude]

seems like a bad idea indeed, you'll definitely notice it than on the lower end

[puddingm]

Shipping can be pricey, and I like to give people as much stuff as I can from their lists, so I don't want that biting into the budget.

Agree with this. While noting that shipping should be taken into consideration once you have gone over the spending limit for the items, and that can vary depending on where people are shipping to that year.

[ferraroso]

Question: Yes or no: shipping costs should be included with the agreed upon spending limit.
Choice 1: Yes. Shipping costs should be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%
Choice 2: No. Shipping costs should not be considered to be a part of the agreed upon spending limit. 50%

I think this issue has been dealt with pretty well this year.
If you don't want to deal with expensive shipping, just inform you don't want to have people living abroad as your giftees and that's it.
Personally speaking, if I had to take shipping costs into consideration, my giftee would've received only a postcard. Haha

[puddingm]

Personally speaking, if I had to take shipping costs into consideration, my giftee would've received only a postcard. Haha

[Cartagia]

I think this issue has been dealt with pretty well this year.
If you don't want to deal with expensive shipping, just inform you don't want to have people living abroad as your giftees and that's it.
Personally speaking, if I had to take shipping costs into consideration, my giftee would've received only a postcard. Haha

I didn't want to speak to the people who had to pay for overseas shipping, but I had a feeling this might be the case.