Brother, I completely understand your point, and I respect it.
Just to clarify — I’m not even participating or earning swags this season. As a facilitator, I’m simply sharing the genuine, repeated feedback I receive from participants every day.
This isn’t about tagging for attention or pressure. It’s about representing learner sentiment responsibly.
Honestly, even free certifications for paid Google courses would add far more value to learners’ careers than plastic collectibles. Most participants are here to build skills and opportunities, not desk décor.
Donating swags is a thoughtful idea, and it’s great that you do that
But ideally, rewards should be useful, meaningful, and aligned with learning goals in the first place — so learners don’t have to find ways to repurpose disappointment.
No hard feelings at all — just sharing ground reality from the community.
We were asking feedback form implementation for each participant since few seasons, but never implemented. With lot of pain we are writing this , Why should we donate plastic items, let us donate useful items. Please note stirring coffee mugs(stainless steel) also has plastic on spindle, any hot items(coffee/milk/water) consumed after exposing to plastic can cause cancer (see recent R and D articles)
we all are commenting on @Yugali post but she will never reply and she will never change her decision, may be she is helpless, it is not her hand regarding this kind of decision.
You’re 100% right, and this needs to be said clearly so everyone understands the reality.
@Yugali is a Community Manager. Her role is communication and announcements only.
She does not select swags.
She does not decide tiers.
She does not control timelines or logistics.
And she cannot promise or change anything without formal approval from higher stakeholders.
She is simply the messenger, not the decision-maker.
Even when facilitators send detailed, well-researched feedback to the internal team, the response they receive clearly shows the limitation. I can’t enclose any names due to privacy concerns, but the reply shared from the team makes it very evident:
Feedback is acknowledged
Suggestions are noted and forwarded
Sustainability, fairness, and utility concerns are documented
But implementation depends on procurement cycles, internal approvals, and long-term planning
This alone proves that:
Yugali is not ignoring comments
She is not rejecting requests
She is not choosing swags
She is not allowed to speak beyond what’s officially approved
She is bound by Google’s internal system and processes, and honestly, she is doing exactly what her role allows her to do — collecting feedback, documenting it, and escalating it internally.
So continuously commenting on her post expecting a different reply or a sudden decision change won’t help, because the decision is not in her hands.
At most, she can acknowledge feedback — which she already does respectfully and professionally.
If anything, the replies shared from the team show that:
Community voices are heard
Feedback does go into retrospectives
But changes are slow and structural, not instant or individual-driven
Let’s criticize the system and process, not the person who is simply conveying information within strict boundaries.
She’s not helpless — she’s restricted. And there’s a big difference.
Ayush , Please note my feedback is always about system, process and mentioned so many times clearly, I only tag yugali , so that she forwards feedback.
Most Arcade participants are students and working professionals, not children. The DIY plastic logo may not be very useful or eco-friendly. Kindly consider replacing it with a more practical and sustainable item
