(WARNING! This is a seriously LONG explanation. If you have an attention deficit disorder or are short of patience or only have a week left to live……. Please just Skip this wall of Words and just cut down to the bottom few paragraphs. Thanks…)
I agree with fradiger… bkemp37 is in the corner on this one.
This situation doesn’t have anything to do with the law. But that being said and understood, there is a phrase often used in courts that goes like this…. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’m sure a certain number of people would consider that to have abstract functionality in relationship to this situation.
I will suggest why I stated that. All problems started at the beginning.
Now one train of thought would be that B Kemp 37 could suggest as he has already that he didn’t know that he was given the incorrect yo-yo by the person he got it from. And no doubt probably all of us will have no trouble believing that.
That we can all agree on was the original problem. But he didn’t know about that so to the best of his knowledge and understanding he got the yo-yo that he thought he was supposed to get.
That was where the problem was created and until he decided to sell or trade that yo-yo the original problem, stopped right there.
Now let’s move ahead to September. Bkemp37 works out a trade with one4all. A Chief for the art yo-yo. He doesn’t deliberately misrepresent the yo-yo he’s trading. But in reality, he doesn’t know that it is not what he thought it was. Immediately, you have to recognize that that is not one4alls problem. He was the recipient of the problem. And that problem was he didn’t get the yo-yo that he was told he was trading for. So the responsibility falls directly on. Bkemp37. I am not making a guess about this. It’s just a logical reasonable fact.
As I said about my phrase, often used in law… That ignorance of the law is no excuse… Likewise, if you think you’re training in good faith, but you’re not even aware of what you’re trading it is not the other person’s fault that your ignorance about what you have turns into them not getting what they’re supposed to.
Also… To compound the problem by stating that the yo-yo was given to his roommate as a gift is not a problem that one4all should be willing to accept or understand.
He gifted a yo-yo to his roommate that wasn’t his gift. It was very nice and generous of him to give the chief to his roommate. There’s nothing wrong about that. But when you realize that you accidentally screwed somebody on a deal for lack of a better way to explain it… Then you have to suck it up. Tell that person you gifted the yo-yo too how you accidentally screwed up. How your roommate accepts that is secondary to making things right with. One4all. And if the roommate doesn’t understand that by considering how he would feel if he was on the wrong end of a deal, then I wouldn’t think much about the roommate either.
Bkemp37 should simply tell his roommate I got a problem and I don’t know any other way to tell you this. I can’t explain it away because it’s a problem that was created for me and I unintentionally pass it on to somebody else. That yo-yo I gave you I gotta give it back to the guy. Because the yo-yo I traded him wasn’t the yo-yo that I said it was or he thought it was. It’s my mistake for unwittingly accepting it for what I thought it was, but it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity that I didn’t catch. The only way I can correct the problem here is to send that guy his chief back. It’s simple as that I feel pretty bad about asking for it back from you… But in all honesty, even though it was unintentional, I gave you something that wasn’t mine to give.
I have no problem giving you or giving you another yo-yo. But it’s part of the online yo-yo community. I have to suck it up and do what’s right not to prove that I’m not a jerk, but just to prove that I can take care of my mistakes. I gotta make this thing right.
Very simple it’s called communication. As I’ve told you guys for years, anything you do in life you either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Bkemp37 didn’t deliberately create the problem. But the brass facts identify that, however, unwitting he was part of the initial creation of the problem. He got a yo-yo that he thought was something else and he traded it to somebody represented it as what he thought it was, which it wasn’t. Sorry I’m making this sound something like a riddle because it really isn’t.
The gifting of the yo-yo is basically out the window. And it’s reversible. Get the yo-yo back from the roommate and get it back to.One4all.
There is no second option on this. You make a mistake you correct it. If you don’t correct it, the karma is on you. There’s no yo-yo on the planet that’s worth losing a little positive reputation for.
So the bottom line is simple…bkemp37 accidentally fell into a problem. And now he deliberately has to solve the problem. What he has to do to solve the problem is just a reality of the situation.
Another old phrase that comes up that crosses over somewhat goes back 50 years when I used to teach people how to paint cars and motorcycles. As soon as I went in the classroom, I would write up on the chalkboard something before I started speaking. I’d pick up the chalk and write down anything short of doing something correctly is doing it incorrectly. It’s that one thing that you don’t do when you’re preparing a car or a Harley for a paint shop that will come back to haunt you. If you don’t know what step you missed it’s possible it’s just ignorance. If you’ve been told the 10 steps you need to follow to get that paint job right and you messed up anyway then you’re stupid. Ignorance is nothing but lack of knowledge. It can be intentional or unintentional.
Now we switch that reasoning over to this deal, which has nothing to do with painting anything, but the logic and reason is still there. Anything short of doing something correctly is doing it incorrectly.
These two guys worked out a yo-yo trade. They had no problems working out the deal and both guys in the trade sent the other yo-yo. One of the guys knew what he had and sent it away. The other guy thought what he had and sent that away. No matter how unintentional making a trade by sending somebody something that really isn’t what it’s supposed to be all the responsibility to make it right is on that person.
Being in the automotive collision trade when we assess accidents, it is common to give each person involved in the accident a percentage of responsibility. Sometimes it’s 50-50 sometimes when it’s real obvious at one person was mainly at fault for however they screwed up. It might be 90/10.. if one person involved in the accident was drinking and driving then the responsibility is 100% on them.
As I said, just using crossovers or substitutions as abstract parallel examples in this particular instance, if we were gonna grade this on percentages, the responsibility in this particular instance is 100% bkemp37.
He should talk to his roommate, explain the predicament and get that yo-yo back to one4all.
As most of us that have been on this forum for a while, know that I can look at an Apple sitting on a table and probably write a book about it, lol.
But when I used to lecture, I found it helpful to give people enough perspective that they can wrap their head around the logic reasoning in reality by considering the circumstances in identifying the right direction to move towards a resolution.
So even though this oratory has a little redundancy and could’ve obviously been a little bit shorter, I know that a good number of people process information differently, so I attack this problem from a couple different angles of reason, but regardless the end result is the same.
Nobody got hurt no blood no broken glass… This is a very, very simple problem. Bkemp37 made a mistake of not being aware of what he was trading and he’s the only guy that can make it right.
