VGCollect Forum
General and Gaming => General => Topic started by: dhaabi on January 08, 2024, 11:23:05 am
-
This past week, I polled 2023's VGC Secret Santa participants to provide anonymous feedback regarding this past year's event and the event on a general level in the hopes that our community's Secret Santa event can become more successful in the future. Of the eight participants, I gained feedback from six. Overall, the feedback collected pertaining to the general event—not specifically this past year's—was quite varied. Despite this event having been run for eleven years with most of this past year's participants having participated before, it was interesting to gain different perspectives. However, that is also a concern since there has not ever been any conversation regarding the finer details including how the budget is handled.
Once a fair amount of opinions are gathered with conversation hopefully following, I will introduce a second item worth mentioning, and so forth after that. This format may come across as a little formal (it isn't), but I'm wanting to introduce one concern at a time so that it's given enough conversation and focus. However, at any point, anyone can also voice whatever concerns or opinions they may have—again, this doesn't need to be formal.
To clarify, this topic isn't exclusive to 2023's Secret Santa participants nor is it exclusive to anyone who's participated in any of this community's Secret Santa events.
Previous VGCollect Secret Santa events
Secret Santa 2013 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,4178.0.html)
Secret Santa 2014 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,5554.0.html)
Secret Santa 2015 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,6559.0.html)
Secret Santa 2016 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,7734.0.html)
Secret Santa 2017 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,8571.0.html)
Secret Santa 2018 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,9354.0.html)
Secret Santa 2019 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,10417.0.html)
Secret Santa 2020 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,11096.0.html)
Secret Santa 2021 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,11567.0.html)
Secret Santa 2022 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12036.0.html)
Secret Santa 2023 (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12565.0.html)
VGCollect Secret Santa Feedback questions
Question 1 discussion: the budget (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12658.msg204298.html#msg204298)
Question 2 discussion: shipping costs (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12658.msg204392.html#msg204392)
Question 3 discussion: region preferences (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12658.msg204594.html#msg204594)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/bfU59x3.jpg)
Question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I believe that the community-voted budget is the minimum. I also understand that some including myself may choose to exceed that budget, but I should not expect for all participants to do so.
Choice 1: I agree. The community-voted budget is only the minimum. If someone chooses, they may exceed that minimum excessively. 66.7%
Choice 2: I do not agree. The community-voted budget is both a minimum and a guide. Someone should not be able to exceed upon the the minimum excessively. 33.3%
I will begin by mentioning the aforementioned discrepancies regarding the agreed-upon budget which has often been set at $60 USD. From the feedback given, people clearly think differently about whether the budget should be greatly exceeded upon or not. Traditionally, and with good reason, the budget for any Secret Santa event is encouraged to be adhered to, as it ensures every participant is both receiving and giving items of near equal value which prevents participants from feeling like their gift to give was worth more than the gift they received. A related issue with this is that, if there are many who believe the budget can be exceeded upon, the budget could easily be raised to a higher amount. Although, this topic isn't to agree upon any future budget in this moment.
Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?
-
Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?
If I had to guess - financial stability. People who want to participate at $60, but couldn't or wouldn't feel comfortable if we went higher.
-
Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?
If I had to guess - financial stability. People who want to participate at $60, but couldn't or wouldn't feel comfortable if we went higher.
Of course, that is a reason for why some may favor a lower budget over a higher one, but that is not directly related to the should the budget be exceeded upon? question.
-
Just want to mention that people might have also interpreted/read the question and/or choices differently.
Would be good if there was a Choice 3, which is a hybrid of Choices 1 & 2.
For example:
I agree that the community-voted budget is both a minimum and a guide. I also understand that some including myself may choose to exceed that budget, but I should not expect for all participants to do so.
It's people's 'choice' if they want to exceed that budget. However, am not sure about the word "excessively" in the 2 choices.
Traditionally, and with good reason, the budget for any Secret Santa event is encouraged to be adhered to, as it ensures every participant is both receiving and giving items of near equal value which prevents participants from feeling like their gift to give was worth more than the gift they received
The above was my understanding, it's a minimum and a guide. People can exceed that budget if they choose to but not to the extent where we need to use the word "excessively" exceeding = no hard feelings from anyone.
In my view, there is a difference between exceeding the budget 'within a reasonable range' vs exceeding the budget 'excessively'. Hope it makes sense ::)
-
Traditionally, and with good reason, the budget for any Secret Santa event is encouraged to be adhered to, as it ensures every participant is both receiving and giving items of near equal value which prevents participants from feeling like their gift to give was worth more than the gift they received
The above was my understanding, it's a minimum and a guide. People can exceed that budget if they choose to but not to the extent where we need to use the word "excessively" exceeding = no hard feelings from anyone.
In my view, there is a difference between exceeding the budget 'within a reasonable range' vs exceeding the budget 'excessively'. Hope it makes sense ::)
For gift-exchanging events like these, there is sometimes allowance for the budget to be exceed upon to a minor degree. However, not all events abide to that outlook while instead strictly enforcing the limit. The feedback form certainly could have been re-worded to define "excessively," as the term is obviously up for interpretation. For instance, some may consider totals more than 10% or higher to be excessive, while some consider it to be 20% or higher. Of course, that is something we as a group could define together.
To better put things in perspective to this question: in recent past years, the budget has been set at $60 USD. However, some Santas have willingly spent more than double than that budget, even before shipping costs. While some may think, wow, how thoughtful!, others will also think, gee, why didn't my Santa spend that much on me? or if the budget was $XX, why did that person spend so much? Should I have too?
-
The only expectation any recipient should have is that you are guaranteed to receive at least $60 worth of videogames or videogame related items before shipping that is not a duplicate of anything you own on your vgcollect profile, is in the region you prefer, and is on your wishlist if that is what you express to the organizer.
If a Secret Santa wants to exceed the $60 threshold- they should be free to do so- but the expectation should not be that everyone has to do so- otherwise what's the point of even having a minimum.
-
Yeah, the excessively part can make it easy to misinterpret. Some folks might genuinely feel stick to it, and some might feel it's no pressure to stick to it, but don't send a thousand dollars worth of stuff.
I'm not your mom do what you want, but sending out a thousand dollars worth of stuff, no matter how generous the thought might be, might make the receiver feel guilty for only doing or staying near the limit and it can make the other gifters feel similarly. I don't think this has really been a problem before on the high end, but it's worth noting that might be the interpretation of excessively.
I will say I have seen in previous years folks not sticking to it as a minimum though.
-
Traditionally, and with good reason, the budget for any Secret Santa event is encouraged to be adhered to, as it ensures every participant is both receiving and giving items of near equal value which prevents participants from feeling like their gift to give was worth more than the gift they received
The above was my understanding, it's a minimum and a guide. People can exceed that budget if they choose to but not to the extent where we need to use the word "excessively" exceeding = no hard feelings from anyone.
In my view, there is a difference between exceeding the budget 'within a reasonable range' vs exceeding the budget 'excessively'. Hope it makes sense ::)
For instance, some may consider totals more than 10% or higher to be excessive, while some consider it to be 20% or higher. Of course, that is something we as a group could define together.
[/i]
10% is only 6$ though. you gotto try hard on average to spot that difference I feel even with 20% tbh which is 10ish$. I assume this is not the issue cause ye gotto try hard to spot a difference in this case. it's within the 60$ ball park in that scenario.
The bigger difference might be how people value that 60$ limit. is it their actual costs (excluding shipping) or the average market value.
2nd hand prices aren't that stable. Perhaps someone only has acces to retro stores or ebay and got stuff at a subpar price, while somebody else got stuff at a really sharp price great acces to games, or sniped a great ebay auction while not exceeding the budget to much or at all in which the average market value might be higher but their cost basis is within that 60$ ball park.
even with new stuff deal hunting, clearances black friday etc the price differences will be notable compared to buying it as usual.
Differences will always exist I feel. it depends on the person how they look at that 60$ limit aside from especially older stuff varying in price big time.
-
10% is only 6$ though. you gotto try hard on average to spot that difference I feel even with 20% tbh which is 10ish$. I assume this is not the issue cause ye gotto try hard to spot a difference in this case. it's within the 60$ ball park in that scenario.
Yeah - %s probably not the best reference (visually on its own makes it 'look excessive' but not in reality by $ :P) to be used for that 'range/excessive'.
i.e. If the budget is $60 and someone spends say $80-100 - the majority will probably see that as being a 'reasonable range' (once again views can differ).
However, if someone spends say $560 instead - then that's probably something different.
Regardless, hence why I mentioned originally that people can interpret/read the question and/or choices differently.
Where for example, I agree with the question statement on its own but then at the same am not sure what we are referring to when we say exceeding "excessively" when I was selecting the choices.
My interpretation of exceeding excessively was going way over the value to sort of degree where it just doesn't seem to be sensible - which ends up putting me in the "I agree and I do not agree" basket where at the end of the day I have to select one of the choices which neither really fully fits :-\. This could also lead to one of the reasons for the discrepancies in this question.
Maybe I was just overthinking ;D.
-
Traditionally, and with good reason, the budget for any Secret Santa event is encouraged to be adhered to, as it ensures every participant is both receiving and giving items of near equal value which prevents participants from feeling like their gift to give was worth more than the gift they received
The above was my understanding, it's a minimum and a guide. People can exceed that budget if they choose to but not to the extent where we need to use the word "excessively" exceeding = no hard feelings from anyone.
In my view, there is a difference between exceeding the budget 'within a reasonable range' vs exceeding the budget 'excessively'. Hope it makes sense ::)
For instance, some may consider totals more than 10% or higher to be excessive, while some consider it to be 20% or higher. Of course, that is something we as a group could define together.
10% is only 6$ though. you gotto try hard on average to spot that difference I feel even with 20% tbh which is 10ish$. I assume this is not the issue cause ye gotto try hard to spot a difference in this case. it's within the 60$ ball park in that scenario.
The bigger difference might be how people value that 60$ limit. is it their actual costs (excluding shipping) or the average market value.
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.
Shipping is another topic which will be discussed later.
2nd hand prices aren't that stable. Perhaps someone only has acces to retro stores or ebay and got stuff at a subpar price, while somebody else got stuff at a really sharp price great acces to games, or sniped a great ebay auction while not exceeding the budget to much or at all in which the average market value might be higher but their cost basis is within that 60$ ball park.
even with new stuff deal hunting, clearances black friday etc the price differences will be notable compared to buying it as usual.
Differences will always exist I feel. it depends on the person how they look at that 60$ limit aside from especially older stuff varying in price big time.
This is a good point to introduce. Of course, market value for items may widely fluctuate. So, it's certainly possible for someone to secure a high-dollar item for a low cost, and vice-versa. For those reasons alone, whatever the agreed upon budget is can't be determined by market value but instead by funds spent. But, on that note, it isn't as if anyone can force a participant to stay within budget, and there's no way to prove it, regardless. After all, nobody is asking for receipts to be supplied, nor should they be. Although, if it's agreed upon to adhere to a certain budget, it can be highly encouraged so that the rules and expectations of the event are kept in good faith.
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.
10% is only 6$ though. you gotto try hard on average to spot that difference I feel even with 20% tbh which is 10ish$. I assume this is not the issue cause ye gotto try hard to spot a difference in this case. it's within the 60$ ball park in that scenario.
Yeah - %s probably not the best reference (visually on its own makes it 'look excessive' but not in reality by $ :P) to be used for that 'range/excessive'.
i.e. If the budget is $60 and someone spends say $80-100 - the majority will probably see that as being a 'reasonable range' (once again views can differ).
Analyzing the differences by percentage yields a more objective results, though. Spending an additional 33%-66%, no matter what the agreed upon budget has been set as, does not sound reasonable to me, and I think many others would agree. At that amount, it is far past the point to when the budget should have just been raised higher.
-
Spending an additional 33%-66%, no matter what the agreed upon budget has been set as, does not sound reasonable to me, and I think many others would agree. At that amount, it is far past the point to when the budget should have just been raised higher.
That's not what the poll result is showing though or I may be looking at the result differently?
The agreed budget will matter in my view when it comes to what is considered as "reasonable" for that additional % - if it goes by % (regardless of how it looks visually).
i.e.
If the budget is set at $60, even if it is at 33% additional, it's only like $20 extra = $80.
However, if the budget is set at $100, then at 33% additional, it would go up to $33 extra = $133.
And imagine if the budget is set at $200, then at 33% additional, it would go all the way up to $66 extra = $266.
In such cases, would it not influence people to reconsider what is considered as 'reasonable' for that additional %?
I mean, people will most likely accept 33% additional at a $60 budget vs accepting 33% additional at a $100/$200 budget etc.
In general, I see two parts to this question.
- whether we agree that the budget is a minimum (and a guide)
- whether we should allow people to exceed 'excessively' if they choose to i.e. not just exceeding but exceeding 'excessively' - whatever the word 'excessively' means for people
-
Spending an additional 33%-66%, no matter what the agreed upon budget has been set as, does not sound reasonable to me, and I think many others would agree. At that amount, it is far past the point to when the budget should have just been raised higher.
In general, I see two parts to this question.
- whether we agree that the budget is a minimum (and a guide)
- whether we should allow people to exceed 'excessively' if they choose to i.e. not just exceeding but exceeding 'excessively' - whatever the word 'excessively' means for people
The actual monetary values matter little, and the poll fails to gain useful information because "excessively" isn't defined. If the budget was agreed to $200, its 33% increase to $266 is no different than a $60 budget exceeded to $80 because they share the same percentage increase.
The poll was made only to gain a general idea for where 2023's participants stand on certain issues. If this issue was wanting to gain actual results and opinions regarding the budget, we'd need to decide how much of a percentage increase (if any) should the budget be allowed to be in excess. Again, bear in mind that every gift should aim to be as close as possible to another in equal value. So, this could be a possible poll scenario:
Should participants be allowed to spend in excess, past the agreed upon budget?
- No. Participants should remain within the budget, aiming for the agreed upon total as close as possible.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 5% if they want.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 10% if they want.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 15% if they want.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 20% if they want.
In the example polling question above, I capped the percentages at 20%. Which, even 20% is steep. I'm firm in my opinion (emphasis on my opinion) that a higher percentage means that the budget itself should be increased. Whatever amount the agreed upon budget happens to be, as I explained above, does not matter.
-
Spending an additional 33%-66%, no matter what the agreed upon budget has been set as, does not sound reasonable to me, and I think many others would agree. At that amount, it is far past the point to when the budget should have just been raised higher.
In general, I see two parts to this question.
- whether we agree that the budget is a minimum (and a guide)
- whether we should allow people to exceed 'excessively' if they choose to i.e. not just exceeding but exceeding 'excessively' - whatever the word 'excessively' means for people
The actual monetary values matter little, and the poll fails to gain useful information because "excessively" isn't defined. If the budget was agreed to $200, its 33% increase to $266 is no different than a $60 budget exceeded to $80 because they share the same percentage increase.
The poll was made only to gain a general idea for where 2023's participants stand on certain issues. If this issue was wanting to gain actual results and opinions regarding the budget, we'd need to decide how much of a percentage increase (if any) should the budget be allowed to be in excess. Again, bear in mind that every gift should aim to be as close as possible to another in equal value. So, this could be a possible poll scenario:
Should participants be allowed to spend in excess, past the agreed upon budget?
- No. Participants should remain within the budget, aiming for the agreed upon total as close as possible.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 5% if they want.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 10% if they want.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 15% if they want.
- Yes. Participants should be allowed to exceed the budget by 20% if they want.
In the example polling question above, I capped the percentages at 20%. Which, even 20% is steep. I'm firm in my opinion (emphasis on my opinion) that a higher percentage means that the budget itself should be increased. Whatever amount the agreed upon budget happens to be, as I explained above, does not matter.
% aside if where talking money wise 20$, is not that much. 40$ sure it gets notable but like we agreed on, prices in terms of 2nd hand goods vary big time. so it also depends how hard the buyer was hunting for deals/lucky. you also said that cost basis is a thing. and the bigger differences can be found here if you can score stuff at the lower end.
Plus like you said you can't really prove that people exceeded the budget big time unless it's stated.
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$. if people want to give more, more power to em I'd say.
Nobody is expecting to get much more than 60$, and nobody should expect to get more if they give more since the budget is 60$. I don't think most have an issue with this and are aware of the finer details.
-
At the very end of the day though nobody is forced to go over the budget. you can stick to the 60$ 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$. if people want to give more, more power to em I'd say.
It's been introduced as something to discuss because adhering to a budget is commonplace and expected when participating in gift exchange events. A maximum exists for the same reason that a minimum does—again, to ensure that gifts given and gifts received are equal, both on an individual level and group level. If there is to be no maximum, then why is there a minimum? With this logic, the event could easily be organized as one without any declared budget, leaving participants to freely send gifts of whatever monetary value—however high or low—of their choosing. With that said, I doubt many, if any, would blindly consider participating in a gift exchange with that lack of budget structure. But, based on feedback provided, that sort of format can certainly be explored. It seems you yourself are promoting it, at the very least. As you've been saying, there is no way for anyone to verify the funds spend for another's gift purchases, so perhaps ignoring a budget altogether—and instead simply asking participants to give what they think is a suitable amount—is more ideal.
-
At the very end of the day though nobody is forced to go over the budget. you can stick to the 60$ 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NLDVphX.jpg)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NLDVphX.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NLDVphX.jpg)
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?
-
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.
-
seems like a bad idea indeed, you'll definitely notice it than on the lower end
-
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.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/NLDVphX.jpg)
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
-
Personally speaking, if I had to take shipping costs into consideration, my giftee would've received only a postcard. Haha
;D ;D ;D
-
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.
-
Of all the forums I've been and am still currently a part of, this is, by far, the one that likes making nearly everything a Rube Goldberg process. You're going around Robin Hood's barn with this, mate; a $60 budget is plenty enough, and this is ignoring the fact the average budget for an event like this usually fluctuates around $20–$50. But, of course, we're talking about video games here, so...
And before there's any kind of talk of whether the budget should be increased, I believe no, $60 is a fair price range to adhere to. What has to be done here is the giftees taking that price to heart and properly using the wish list to add games that don't go over the stipulated price, as well as come to terms with the possibility that their Secret Santa may end up gifting just one game that could possibly cost them $60. That of course doesn't mean a Secret Santa can't throw something else in the package for the sake of Christmas, but this notion of always expecting more than one thing is, in my sincerest opinion, detrimental to the spirit of the event.
I was going to continue my train of thought, but then I remembered what I said previously (quoted above). What NickAwesome said I feel is also quite fitting, which I'll quote below. There's really no more to this; otherwise, efface the current budget and let the gifter decide how much they want to spend based on their giftee's wish list and their own budgetary constraints. But, again, $60 is more than enough.
The only expectation any recipient should have is that you are guaranteed to receive at least $60 worth of videogames or videogame related items before shipping that is not a duplicate of anything you own on your vgcollect profile, is in the region you prefer, and is on your wishlist if that is what you express to the organizer.
If a Secret Santa wants to exceed the $60 threshold- they should be free to do so- but the expectation should not be that everyone has to do so- otherwise what's the point of even having a minimum.
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.
And there it is; there you have it: Bod's your uncle.
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.
Good grief, dude, cut the magniloquence a tad, you essentially repeated what sworddude said. It's obvious that budgets for this type of event are meant to be adhered to, and it's obvious that if a gifter wishes to go over the established budget, they're well within their right to do so; it's their choice if they want to spend a few more bucks "for the sake of Christmas", especially if their giftee happens to be someone that they appreciate. That's, after all, partly the spirit of the event. A terse note saying that the budget is X amount but that going over it is left at the gifter's discretion should suffice. And as far as shipping costs go, the mere thought of mixing them with the budget is, to put it bluntly, asinine, especially when taking international shipping costs into account. When you're out and about looking to buy gifts during Christmas or for any other occasion, do you include shipping costs as part of your budget, particularly when it involves a loved one?
I mean, I'm probably going to get lambasted for saying this given the track record, but this is common sense, or rather, let's say common knowledge for the sake of the argument; it doesn't need to be made as intricate as an IKEA instructional manual. Just make sure the first post clearly enumerates the basics of a Secret Santa, as if you were explaining it to a 5-year-old, and be specific about the overall budget and the role the wish list plays in the event. And, in regards to gifts being of "equal value", since I'm sure you're still going to bring that up if I don't make mention of it, that's the point of the wish list, where users should include items that fall within the set budget. If a user only has one item that's within the budget and a bunch of other items that cost $10 where the gifter is unable to find the one of higher value but many of the lower-valued ones, then that user can't come here complaining that they somehow got fleeced or that their Secret Santa didn't "fill their quota". I'll have to cut my argument here, given that I was going to mention how the wish list function here has a dropdown menu that sets a priority flag to whatever item you add to it, which in turn could have further helped a Secret Santa know what items to zero in on for their giftees, but, as it turns out, that feature is a total bust. Why am I not surprised...?
For a whole decade, this event has seen various degrees of success, with its few hiccups here and there, sure, some due to user error, others due to miscommunication, to the point we managed to have a strong bond of camaraderie when participants were willing to pitch in given it seemed one user hadn't received their gift, in the end resolving itself when they finally did (and apparently receiving a second when someone sent a care package). Now we have to go through this otiose exercise all because of a thankless jerkwad? Fuck no. This type of event is supposed to be fun and simple, something I feel soera abundantly demonstrated during the time he hosted the event; we're not dealing with quantum mechanics here.
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.
And why would you not, especially when you yourself said that "shipping can be pricey"? If that's a truth for you, then it's safe to say it's also for someone living on the other side of the globe, especially if they're shipping internationally. The basics of Secret Santa are universal. C'mon, man, you're a mod now; look out for your fellow denizens.
-
Just make sure the first post clearly enumerates the basics of a Secret Santa, as if you were explaining it to a 5-year-old, and be specific about the overall budget and the role the wish list plays in the event.
To begin, feedback wanting to be collected has nothing to do with any particular past circumstance. When I took on the role of being 2023's organizer, I knew from the start that there would be a follow-up feedback discussion. Otherwise, nothing ever improves and anything uncertain remains that way.
With the above comment in mind, rules and understandings for issues like these, no matter how simple they may appear to be, greatly benefit from discussion, because people obviously think differently on certain issues. It is intended for collected feedback itself to craft the specific outlines such as how the budget should be handled, how shipping relates to the budget, and selecting items from the wish list. Otherwise, it is merely one person dictating what is and isn't, which should be avoided. With the feedback collected in this topic, we can then ensure that these are guidelines formed with the community in mind, which couldn't be done before the start of this past year's event as there was much to do in the short time available once it began being organized.
As you say, it is common knowledge, or rather, common sense for collected feedback to be put to good use. So, obviously, my counterargument was never going to be the deciding factor for how a certain guideline is enforced. Instead, it was introduced to elicit conversation to hopefully yield a fruitful discussion, which was successful with the first matter regarding going over-budget. We know that we think differently on these issues, so discussing the pros and cons to them, alongside counterpoints refuting both sides, is helpful in articulating one's opinion and, possibly, swaying others' positions on matters.
Appreciate the feedback.
-
If this is for you, then cool, I guess, but it still seems supererogatory, in my opinion.
Either way, keep on rolling.
-
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%
Whether you agree or disagree with the above question, why is that?
Since nobody on the forums has actually spoken in favor of Choice 2, I was curious to see what kind of feedback I'd collect from AI.
Prompt:
An online Secret Santa gift exchange has a budget of $60. What are some defending arguments for the view that shipping costs are a part of the actual budget. For example, if a gift costs $30 and the shipping also costs $30, the $60 total budget has been met.
Response:
Including shipping costs as part of the actual budget in an online Secret Santa gift exchange has several defending arguments:
1 Comprehensive Budgeting: Considering shipping costs as part of the budget provides a more realistic and comprehensive view of the total expenses involved in participating. It acknowledges that the cost of sending a gift is an integral component of the overall budgeting process.
2 Transparent Guidelines: Clearly stating that the budget encompasses both the cost of the gift and its shipping helps set transparent guidelines for participants. This clarity ensures that everyone understands the full extent of their financial commitment when participating in the Secret Santa exchange.
3 Avoiding Budget Overruns: By explicitly including shipping costs within the $60 budget, participants are less likely to exceed the prescribed limit unintentionally. This prevents budget overruns and helps maintain fairness and consistency among all participants.
4 Encouraging Consideration of Total Costs: Including shipping costs prompts participants to consider the total expenses associated with their chosen gifts. This encourages thoughtful and responsible decision-making, as participants weigh the combined cost of the gift and its shipping against the budget constraint.
5 Preventing Unequal Spending: If shipping costs are excluded from the budget, participants might end up spending significantly different amounts based on their geographic locations. Including shipping costs ensures that everyone has an equal financial commitment, irrespective of their location.
6 Flexibility in Gift Selection: Recognizing shipping costs as part of the budget allows participants greater flexibility in choosing gifts. They can factor in both the item's cost and the associated shipping expenses without worrying about exceeding the budget.
7 Accommodating Diverse Locations: In an online Secret Santa with participants from various locations, including shipping costs accommodates the diverse geographic spread. It acknowledges the potential variations in shipping fees based on distances and ensures that participants from different regions are not disadvantaged.
8 Simplifying Budgeting for Participants: Participants may find it easier to manage their budget when it explicitly covers both the gift and shipping costs. This simplification contributes to a smoother and more enjoyable gift exchange experience for all involved.
9 Mitigating Financial Burden: Including shipping costs as part of the budget helps prevent financial strain on participants, particularly those who may have to send gifts internationally. It promotes inclusivity by acknowledging that shipping expenses are an integral aspect of the gift exchange process.
In summary, incorporating shipping costs into the actual budget of an online Secret Santa gift exchange promotes transparency, prevents unequal spending, and facilitates more informed and responsible decision-making by participants. It ensures that the budget reflects the true cost of participating in the gift exchange.
In the end, I have the feeling that anyone who voted that shipping costs should be considered and expected as part of the budget did so because they're uncomfortable with exceeding whatever budget has been set. From my point-of-view, the first five points which AI yielded have some merit, but I also think that the counterarguments to those points are more realistic in how participants select gifts and the matter of high shipping costs. So high in costs that, for some, shipping may even come close to outweighing the actual gift value, which has been mentioned by others.
If there isn't any more active conversation for the discussion on whether shipping should be included as part of the budget or not, I'll introduce the third talking point soon.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lJXR8pB.jpeg)
Prompt: Members from all over the world participate in VGCollect Secret Santa. Therefore, unless specific items are requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should not expect the exact regional item as a gift. (e.g. NA participant requested NA Resident Evil but received JP Biohazard.)
Choice 1: I agree. Unless a specific item is requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should be willing to receive items from any region. 16.7%
Choice 2: I agree. Unless a specific item is requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should be willing to receive items from any region. However, this should only be expected when the hardware to play the item is region-free, such as the PlayStation 4 and Switch. 33.3%
Choice 3: I disagree. Santas should be willing to provide region-specific gifts based on their giftee's location, unless specified otherwise. (e.g. a NA Santa should be expected to gift their JP giftee games from Japan, not from North America.) 33.3%
Other (custom answer): This is a hard one. Generally the non-NA participants are the ones who this could be an issue for, but every time I've gotten a non-NA participant they have had a good variety of easily attainable games for their gifter. 16.7%
This question doesn't necessarily affect anyone who's wanting to avoid shipping internationally, but it certainly does affect all others. Whether you agree or disagree with the above statement, why is that?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lJXR8pB.jpeg)
Prompt: Members from all over the world participate in VGCollect Secret Santa. Therefore, unless specific items are requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should not expect the exact regional item as a gift. (e.g. NA participant requested NA Resident Evil but received JP Biohazard.)
I assume you mean for a console that isn't region locked right?
Cause for ps1, to play imports you either need
- The correct region console
- a game shark in which you bypass the menu
- a modded console
and if you don't have that your stuck with the disc swap trick, which can damage the console and your disc and is a pain in the ass to pull off. But this free option is not always a thing that works on other consoles that's just for ps1.
If it's region locked it's a defo no no unless receiver doesn't mind imports and stated it somewhere. Might be unplayable otherwise. Not to mention how playable would said game be in japanese? If it's an rpg screen translation apps only go so far.
If it's region free you got more of a point, unless someone specifically requests to have their desired version.
Still this is vgcollect, and while imports can be cheaper from a collector's standpoint you'd think people want their own region version. I could see exceptions when stuff is way cheaper but at that point they'd probably have the other version listed in their wish list aswell.
Still would depend on the person, cause as long as the box is english I've seen folks that wouldn't mind either version with consoles like ds, gameboy ps4, switch
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lJXR8pB.jpeg)
Prompt: Members from all over the world participate in VGCollect Secret Santa. Therefore, unless specific items are requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should not expect the exact regional item as a gift. (e.g. NA participant requested NA Resident Evil but received JP Biohazard.)
Choice 1: I agree. Unless a specific item is requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should be willing to receive items from any region. 16.7%
Choice 2: I agree. Unless a specific item is requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should be willing to receive items from any region. However, this should only be expected when the hardware to play the item is region-free, such as the PlayStation 4 and Switch. 33.3%
Choice 3: I disagree. Santas should be willing to provide region-specific gifts based on their giftee's location, unless specified otherwise. (e.g. a NA Santa should be expected to gift their JP giftee games from Japan, not from North America.) 33.3%
Other (custom answer): This is a hard one. Generally the non-NA participants are the ones who this could be an issue for, but every time I've gotten a non-NA participant they have had a good variety of easily attainable games for their gifter. 16.7%
This question doesn't necessarily affect anyone who's wanting to avoid shipping internationally, but it certainly does affect all others. Whether you agree or disagree with the above statement, why is that?
Interesting to see such a varied response to this and think sworddude has covered how I see it as well.
-
Prompt: Members from all over the world participate in VGCollect Secret Santa. Therefore, unless specific items are requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should not expect the exact regional item as a gift. (e.g. NA participant requested NA Resident Evil but received JP Biohazard.)
Choice 1: I agree. Unless a specific item is requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should be willing to receive items from any region. 16.7%
Choice 2: I agree. Unless a specific item is requested based on shopping preference priority, participants should be willing to receive items from any region. However, this should only be expected when the hardware to play the item is region-free, such as the PlayStation 4 and Switch. 33.3%
Choice 3: I disagree. Santas should be willing to provide region-specific gifts based on their giftee's location, unless specified otherwise. (e.g. a NA Santa should be expected to gift their JP giftee games from Japan, not from North America.) 33.3%
Other (custom answer): This is a hard one. Generally the non-NA participants are the ones who this could be an issue for, but every time I've gotten a non-NA participant they have had a good variety of easily attainable games for their gifter. 16.7%
Having thought about this question some more, this sort of preference seems better implemented as a question needing to be asked to each participant during the sign-up process. Unlike the two previous questions, it only affects everyone on an individual level.
Below are several comments received during the initial feedback poll. They're followed by my personal opinion on the matter, but anyone else can voice their opinion as well.
I wish we could somehow limit participation in the discussion threads to people who are participating or who have participated in the past
There are pros and cons to having the discussion be private or public. While a private discussion obviously keeps those who don't have business with the event from participating in the dialogue, it also prohibits anyone possibly interested in joining the following year because there's no public credibility. Of course, we could always move the topic to a private board while it's ongoing and then move it back to the public once completed with a little effort, but only Admins have that capability.
For easy viewing, status of each package added in the main post (as per previous years) as the event progresses.
I agree that this would be helpful, and I did think about including that detail like previous events have done. However, since the pool of participants was so small, it would be quite easy to figure out who their Santa was before their packaged even arrived since I was also giving many participants an ETA on when gifts would be delivered alongside participants posting publicly about when items were being shipped out. I really wanted to avoid anyone finding out their Santa's identity early on.
[Secret Santa could be improved by having the] visibility to see the info that we have originally submitted via Google Form (if it's not already a function).
I believe this would require e-mail addresses to be collected which I felt was unneeded. If a form is ever used again for the sign-up process, it would be easy to relay that information if requested, though.
At this point, the three aforementioned questions were the only ones needing to be discussed pertaining to the event on a general level. Of course, discussion can still continue relating to them should anyone want to add anything. That said, if anyone else has feedback, suggestions, comments, questions, concerns, or anything else worth mentioning, feel free to post them.
I've also updated the topic post (https://vgcollect.com/forum/index.php/topic,12658.msg204297.html#msg204297) with useful links.