Donations: Video Games vs Charity

[theeboredone]

So there can be justifications made for both sides, and while there is no "concrete" proof that can be presented for possibly said sides, I just wanted to hear what people think of this topic.

I'm not sure if Smash is the only competitive community to do this, but it seems like there has been an increase in players asking for donations from the community so they can attend events. Some of these fundraisers have easily pushed past 1,000 dollars before. The most recent one I know of, Dr. PeePee raised more than 1200 dollars to fund his trip to Europe.

I personally think it's great of the community to pitch in, but at what point do these donations become "too much?" 1200 dollars is a lot of money collectively, and there are plenty of people out there who could use that sort of money. I understand not just in Brawl, but a lot of competitive gamers take well...their game seriously. They want to travel, meet new people, get better, and of course, win. However, I personally believe that there is a "threshold" to be had.

My personal stance is that, if I had to swing one way or the other, I'd opt to not have donations made to support players, no matter what their skill level. If I had to be lenient...well I'm not sure what threshold I'd have, but I would sure as well not go past 1000 dollars.

The easy argument would be that we're all just greedy *******s, and prefer our own pleasure (video games) over someone else's pain (some African kid starving). We do this everyday. However, some situations do stand out more than others, and fundraising an enormous amount of money for one's own gain would be one of them.

 

[Ussi]

Most of the time people donating are either friends or meatriding fanboys. Most of the time... I know there has been a few mind blowing donations like that one guy did for Apex. Its personally a judgement call on the person donating, there is no right or wrong here. Sure you can feed a few people or you can contribute to the pleasure of 1000s who will watch the stream to follow the guy you funded to a tournament, which helps the community grow. (granted for us Muslims feeding someone is a very very big reward but that's for us Bored)

 

[Ramen King]

"at what point do these donations become 'too much?'"

They don't ever become too much. People are free to do with their money as they please. And people are free to accept money as they please. Look at this way. Many people are able to fund their own way to these events, correct? How would the money they use to pay their way to these events be any different than those who have received the money from others' generosity? Should not those participants put their money towards charity rather than a video game as well? We could always make an argument for what someone should be doing with their money, and many people would have different opinions. If it were up for others to decide such a thing for a person, freedom would be completely removed from the equation. That, I feel, would be more immoral than anything a person could choose to spend their money on.

 

[Kal]

Ramen, I don't think it's a question of what people have the right to do. Nobody is arguing that people be forbidden from donating their money to frivolous things. The question is more on the morality of it; as I'm sure you would agree, the mere fact that you are free to do something does not preclude it from being ethically questionable. Though I think your point on the difference between funding yourself and funding someone else is a very good one, and mostly puts this issue to rest.

For me, personally, I say **** 'em. Creating a thread asking for donations to go play a video game is some self-important bull ****.

 

[Battlecow]

When people donate (I'm guilty of throwing a few bucks around) they're buying something. If a bunch of people put in $20, it buys them all half an hour or so of PP playing Armada. It's essentially the same thing as when people buy tickets to sporting events or Pay-per-view boxing matches--the overhead (in this case, transportation) is covered by the spectators, who are willing to give money in exchange for entertainment.

The difference between buying PP a ticket to sweden and buying a ticket to a football game is that I don't HAVE to give $20 to PP; he might make it without me and then I can watch away anyways, whereas I gotta pay to watch the football game. So I guess I'm sort of buying enjoyment for others as well; is it wrong to be generous?

That said, yes, the money would probably be "better" spent on charity (although charity in general is depressingly bad and you don't get nearly as much bang for your buck as you think you do). However, wouldn't the money you'd save by never eating out be better spent on charity? Wouldn't the money you pay to see a movie? Everyone kind of knows that that Matthew 19:21 **** is what you "should" do, but until you're actually sacrificing all or almost all non-necessaries and devoting all of your time to charity, don't tell me never to spend money on entertainment.

Also, in many cases it's a situation where the money the player wins at the tourney allows him to pay everyone back, in which case you're essentially giving a friend of yours a loan so he can do something fun and then pay you back.