In the meantime, DS, in all his glory, has offered a lend of his Switch, which is a fantastic gesture.

If a few people are going to borrow it, I think it would be nice for each of us to buy an extra game or two for it, so when it gets back to him he's got a good bunch of extra stuff to play. Although I have a feeling he hates Bayonetta...

Good post there Jon and DS is a star for lending out his Switch. But none of the preceding posts have made me think buying someone else a console is a bad idea and, as I said above, I will contribute when I feel like it. I hope others will too.

I've caught up with everything and I now feel quite shit.

Gonz, let me try to explain. 

The issue seems to be that once we were over target for Dan's ticket, that I didn't then start planning to pay for Swirl to come to London. I have no PMs about driving donations for that, so I'm not sure what you're referencing there, but in the thread I had addressed his interest in coming by unfortunately saying there was no room to stay at my tiny flat where I already had Dan. I did not ignore it, but hoped for the best that he was going to be able to attend. That felt like the most I could do. To me, starting another donation drive during the one I was nervously trying to make good on was outside the scope of what had started to come together. 

That scope, having started the whole thing with no real plan, had begun growing. I felt that by promising things like good-quality food on arrival, some drinks, and BBQ sauce to take home, that it was becoming a better value thing to spend money on. Side note, @spacegazelle, I still owe you a sauce, I am sorry for the delay. 

For the record, having gone over the numbers this morning, I spent the extra ~£80 on making that BBQ sauce, the food I spent ages sourcing and cooking and providing decent booze for those that came to my house first. Probably a bit more than that, considering where I shopped for the stuff. The point is to then take that stuff away from people would have been rum as fuck. Quick shout to the resurgence of the word rum on this fo-rum btw, that's my only positive of all this. 

Looking at it now, 2.5 years later, I think if I had had more of a sense that my approach at the time was alienating people (or maybe just person, I dunno), I'd have rather just put out some lunchables, a couple of carrot sticks, some mighty-white dippers, a juicebox or two and spent the rest on Swirly's ticket. Sounds like I'm being silly but I do take the point that not everyone contributing cared about what type of provisions were being provided to those that came to my house.

In essence, I'd support what Griff is saying here:

Lord_Griff wrote:

It's fucking simple. Someone needs assistance, an individual asks if anyone wants to help. Help is provided. If the recipient doesn't want help or funds raised are excessive (determined by contributors) then contributors vote on what happens collectively (UK trustee rules).

Gonz, I'd be more than happy to paypal your score back or make a charitable donation somewhere of your choice, let me know.

The same goes for anyone else that might have been feeling the same, I'm very open to criticism or feedback on how I went about things.

Thanks to those that have shown support.

True story: I missed the stock in question as I realised at the point that I left the house that I couldn’t even afford to pay to travel three stops on the Overground. Lolme.

JonB wrote:

legaldinho wrote:

No dig at Jon was intended. It's just, we raise money, self congratulate, but there is no system for inclusiveness or fairness. It means that the quieter people who are struggling financially watch this and are, well, bitter and disillusioned. Or think they aren't liked. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

The problem is that because there hasn't been a system of inclusiveness or fairness, bringing it up now, when someone's just been 'nominated' for this thing can't help but feel unfair and exclusive. Not that I want to moan or generate pity, but maybe you want to consider the impact of your good intentions as well.

To put it in perspective, I was originally in two minds about the whole buy someone a console thing for the same reason. It generally just took one person to mention it and that was that, regardless of who the recipient was. I wondered whether it was fair, or whether the inevitable extra money that was collected might have gone to someone else, rather than to get extra games/peripherals. 

But I always also thought it was just a really nice thing to do, and it was great that someone who couldn't afford something suddenly got this great surprise, and in fact ended up with a really great package of console + games etc. And the more times it happened the more I found myself leaning towards this interpretation - just pleased for the person receiving, without any bitterness, disillusionment or sense that it reflected badly on my status on the forum in any way.

So, what I want to say is that everyone should buy me a Switch and all the games. No, just kidding. What I want to say is that, even though I absolutely do not want you guys to buy me a Switch, I feel like this really nice thing that people do here has been poisoned now. I guess no one will feel comfortable suggesting that someone should be bought a console anymore, which I think is a bit shit. There are of course more important causes, and even I've donated small amounts to those, but I think those should be considered separately from these other drives which are more for fun, and I hope the latter can continue in some way.

I can well see why you feel burned, but really, I just had the say something. It's descended into farce a bit with discussion of a 2.5 year old use of a 100 quid overspend. Either we just keep going as we do, but maybe keep an eye out on those who might be missing out, or we have a target system - we need to raise X to cover Y; overspend can go to a stretch goal agreed or voted on, or can go to a hardship fund for those who need it, etc etc

All I wanted is to promote a discussion of an issue I know is rubbing people the wrong way.

fullspectrum wrote:

I've caught up with everything and I now feel quite shit.

Gonz, let me try to explain. 

The issue seems to be that once we were over target for Dan's ticket, that I didn't then start planning to pay for Swirl to come to London. I have no PMs about driving donations for that, so I'm not sure what you're referencing there, but in the thread I had addressed his interest in coming by unfortunately saying there was no room to stay at my tiny flat where I already had Dan. I did not ignore it, but hoped for the best that he was going to be able to attend. That felt like the most I could do. To me, starting another donation drive during the one I was nervously trying to make good on was outside the scope of what had started to come together. 

That scope, having started the whole thing with no real plan, had begun growing. I felt that by promising things like good-quality food on arrival, some drinks, and BBQ sauce to take home, that it was becoming a better value thing to spend money on. Side note, @spacegazelle, I still owe you a sauce, I am sorry for the delay. 

For the record, having gone over the numbers this morning, I spent the extra ~£80 on making that BBQ sauce, the food I spent ages sourcing and cooking and providing decent booze for those that came to my house first. Probably a bit more than that, considering where I shopped for the stuff. The point is to then take that stuff away from people would have been rum as fuck. Quick shout to the resurgence of the word rum on this fo-rum btw, that's my only positive of all this. 

Looking at it now, 2.5 years later, I think if I had had more of a sense that my approach at the time was alienating people (or maybe just person, I dunno), I'd have rather just put out some lunchables, a couple of carrot sticks, some mighty-white dippers, a juicebox or two and spent the rest on Swirly's ticket. Sounds like I'm being silly but I do take the point that not everyone contributing cared about what type of provisions were being provided to those that came to my house.

In essence, I'd support what Griff is saying here:

Lord_Griff wrote:

It's fucking simple. Someone needs assistance, an individual asks if anyone wants to help. Help is provided. If the recipient doesn't want help or funds raised are excessive (determined by contributors) then contributors vote on what happens collectively (UK trustee rules).

Gonz, I'd be more than happy to paypal your score back or make a charitable donation somewhere of your choice, let me know.

The same goes for anyone else that might have been feeling the same, I'm very open to criticism or feedback on how I went about things.

Thanks to those that have shown support.

Thanks, but I don't want that money back. I just want more sensitivity, going forward, to inclusiveness and non-cliqueyness. It's a difficult issue: do we make it really awesome for X, or do we spread the joy a bit. At the time, you and Dan were right, you chose the former. I chose that as an example because I think now, Dan might rightly be aggrieved that we raised money for tempy but not him. And doubly so if the follow up on that is to get someone a console. Anyway, that is the end of that for me.

One thing that occurs to me is that financial aid during times of hardship and buying gifts for pals (consoles, games, etc) are two different things. Both are bloody beautiful things to do for a person, but they’re very different.

Also, buying a badger a console feels like a very B&B thing to do. Watching everyone rally round and buy DS a Bone, simply because some Badgers wanted him to be able to join in their online sessions (and in thanks for his near-constant assistance to anyone navigating the high seas) was a genuinely affecting thing. It warmed my cockles. And it was very different to helping out someone with a genuine need. Both are valid and lovely things to do.

poprock wrote:

One thing that occurs to me is that financial aid during times of hardship and buying gifts for pals (consoles, games, etc) are two different things. Both are bloody beautiful things to do for a person, but they’re very different.

I also think this is a very important point.

As long as we all understand what we have here, and that everyone is a dick, and everyone can be misconstrued and the majority of all the friction here is down to Hanlon's Razor then we'll be alright. Also accept that nobody will ever buy Griff anything.

I do just want to say that while a formalised hardship fund sounds nice in theory, I cannot help but feel that it’s going to cause problems. I mean, who becomes the arbiter of when these payments should be made? And how will people who are turned down for payments supposed to feel? Surely that’s going to cause a ton of bad feeling anyway?

I take on board Gonzo’s points around fairness here, but I feel like a hardship fund may well bring issues of its own.

b0r1s wrote:

Haven't I bought you a Pimms?

legaldinho wrote:

I've caught up with everything and I now feel quite shit. Gonz, let me try to explain.  The issue seems to be that once we were over target for Dan's ticket, that I didn't then start planning to pay for Swirl to come to London. I have no PMs about driving donations for that, so I'm not sure what you're referencing there, but in the thread I had addressed his interest in coming by unfortunately saying there was no room to stay at my tiny flat where I already had Dan. I did not ignore it, but hoped for the best that he was going to be able to attend. That felt like the most I could do. To me, starting another donation drive during the one I was nervously trying to make good on was outside the scope of what had started to come together.  That scope, having started the whole thing with no real plan, had begun growing. I felt that by promising things like good-quality food on arrival, some drinks, and BBQ sauce to take home, that it was becoming a better value thing to spend money on. Side note, @spacegazelle, I still owe you a sauce, I am sorry for the delay.  For the record, having gone over the numbers this morning, I spent the extra ~£80 on making that BBQ sauce, the food I spent ages sourcing and cooking and providing decent booze for those that came to my house first. Probably a bit more than that, considering where I shopped for the stuff. The point is to then take that stuff away from people would have been rum as fuck. Quick shout to the resurgence of the word rum on this fo-rum btw, that's my only positive of all this.  Looking at it now, 2.5 years later, I think if I had had more of a sense that my approach at the time was alienating people (or maybe just person, I dunno), I'd have rather just put out some lunchables, a couple of carrot sticks, some mighty-white dippers, a juicebox or two and spent the rest on Swirly's ticket. Sounds like I'm being silly but I do take the point that not everyone contributing cared about what type of provisions were being provided to those that came to my house. In essence, I'd support what Griff is saying here:

It's fucking simple. Someone needs assistance, an individual asks if anyone wants to help. Help is provided. If the recipient doesn't want help or funds raised are excessive (determined by contributors) then contributors vote on what happens collectively (UK trustee rules).

Gonz, I'd be more than happy to paypal your score back or make a charitable donation somewhere of your choice, let me know. The same goes for anyone else that might have been feeling the same, I'm very open to criticism or feedback on how I went about things. Thanks to those that have shown support.

Thanks, but I don't want that money back. I just want more sensitivity, going forward, to inclusiveness and non-cliqueyness. It's a difficult issue: do we make it really awesome for X, or do we spread the joy a bit. At the time, you and Dan were right, you chose the former. I chose that as an example because I think now, Dan might rightly be aggrieved that we raised money for tempy but not him. And doubly so if the follow up on that is to get someone a console. Anyway, that is the end of that for me.

All good with me, wider inclusion and empathy as a result of this can only be a good thing. 

If Swirl's reading, I want to apologise if the fundraiser I ran had a side-effect of making you feel shunned. It wasn't a deliberate thing. As I mentioned I was surprised we even hit target and when we went over, I wanted to try and make those that donated feel like they had got value. I completely see the argument for cutting it off at target and channeling the funds towards someone else. 

A clearer stretch goal, as we are saying we should have for the future, would have prevented this. It was an impulsive decision to see if we could get Dan down and by its nature, lacking in the planning department.

Not to speak for him but I think Dan's on a break so probably not read anything here for a while. I'll probably spare him the details for now.

How about if people do these drives, they set a target for whatever the objective is and then don't go over it? Then there's no argument. Everybody agrees to chip in whatever they want and if it goes over the set limit then actual donations are adjusted accordingly. Target is achieved, everybody probably pays less in the end, and there no ill will.

Dark Soldier wrote:

I've PMed Jon about the switch, I'll cover postage. Done, chill lads.

I had Jon in the secret Santa. He lives in fucking Cyprus so you might wanna think twice about the postage covering offer. Fuck me, it cost me £54 to send some mince pies and a few prezzies.