Boo on Actionhound
- Thread starter jay helfert
- Start date
- Status
probably a favor
I'm not sure that any of Actionhound's behavior broke the board's ROE. Of course we aren't privy to PM's and such. If AZB is going to ban people based on unacceptable behavior not on AZB there will be a lot of bannings including at least one person that had their own section the last I noticed. If only those without sin are allowed to post the forums are gonna be awful empty.
I suspect the banning, if permanent, is actually doing Actionhound a favor. If he chooses he will sneak back on with a new handle and a clean slate however "Actionhound" will be a dog forever on AZB.
Hu
easy-e said:
I'm not sure that any of Actionhound's behavior broke the board's ROE. Of course we aren't privy to PM's and such. If AZB is going to ban people based on unacceptable behavior not on AZB there will be a lot of bannings including at least one person that had their own section the last I noticed. If only those without sin are allowed to post the forums are gonna be awful empty.
I suspect the banning, if permanent, is actually doing Actionhound a favor. If he chooses he will sneak back on with a new handle and a clean slate however "Actionhound" will be a dog forever on AZB.
Hu
yobagua said:
For the record, I did not request a ban on the Hound Dog. The thought actually never crossed my mind. I was as surprised as anyone when he got banned. Do I mind? NO! Perhaps if and when he pays me (and I post that fact on here), he may get a second chance. I don't know and it's not up to me to decide.
What I do know is this. The transaction between me and the Hound took place on AZ. We met here, we communicated here (via PM's) and we made a deal here to sponsor John Schmidt in the DCC Ring Game. All our communication came through these channels, so AZ was a conduit for what transpired. If the Hound could use this forum to burn me, he could do it again to someone else. There are a lot of people on here who didn't know about this situation until I brought it up.
So if their purpose in banning him is to protect others, that makes perfect sense to me. If it were my website, I would consider doing the same thing. Remember the Hound never disputed the fact that we made a deal and he welched. His reply to my accusations against him was that he "tried" to pay me and failed. And because I insulted him by asking for the money (and not buying into his stories), he no longer felt an obligation to pay me.
If the Hound ever pays me anything I will post that fact on here. Until then, he can remain 'personna non grata' as far as I'm concerned.
I think the Mods should ban people when they are caught scamming others. They have to protect the members that are honest and are here to contribute and help the site grow. The bottom line is people like Actionclown are STEALING and that has to have some penalty.
Southpaw
Southpaw
Southpaw said:
It was already brought up in another thread. Basically, I believe the mods allow these members to continue because at least this way, you can research them. If the mods ban them, but find another way around it other people could be burned without warning.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Did I miss something?
Deno was the mouthpiece on here for the biggest scam in billiards history. I don't remember him being banned when the IPT stiffed the players for months with no idea if they would ever pay anything but maybe I didn't notice it. Anyone? Was Deno Andrews banned?
No love for actionhound from me but things do seem to work on a sliding scale on these forums.
Hu
Southpaw said:
Deno was the mouthpiece on here for the biggest scam in billiards history. I don't remember him being banned when the IPT stiffed the players for months with no idea if they would ever pay anything but maybe I didn't notice it. Anyone? Was Deno Andrews banned?
No love for actionhound from me but things do seem to work on a sliding scale on these forums.
Hu
iba7467 said:
I understand how easy it is to open a new account and post under different names, but does that mean that everyone is allowed to scam once? I mean, Jay got stuck..yes, but $300 is small compared to what it could have been. What if someone screws a memeber out of $1500? Do they not deserve more than just a neg. rep.? I think they should be banned....and then caned by all members. JMO.
Southpaw
I think it's fine that the moderators have leeway in deciding who gets banned. They are pretty good at policing this forum and recognizing who is messing it up.
Besides, being banned (from what I've seen so far), is usually only temporary. It's more like being told to sit in the corner for awhile.
Besides, being banned (from what I've seen so far), is usually only temporary. It's more like being told to sit in the corner for awhile.
jay helfert said:
I don't think that the banning of ActionHound protects anyone on AZ. In fact it is just the opposite.
The public flogging of ActionHound did a lot of things, one of which is to present a RED FLAG to AZers concerning any financial transactions with him.
As long as we know it is ActionHound, we know to tread carefully. If he comes back with a new identity others may not know who he is.
While this has been an unfortunate experience for you, either way, this situation has smartened up all of AZ and for the better. Let the matchmaker beware. It really is no different than being in a pool hall. Some people welch on bets all of the time and have a reputation for it. This is another good reason for the true identities of all posters to be known and verified by other AZers.
While I understand ActionHound being upset at the public flogging he received, he must come to the realization that it is his own doing and he has an obligation to pay you regardless of the circumstances, if only to clear his name as a dead-beat.
If I were him, I would send you another check for the full amount owed and ask another AZer (even you) to make a post on his behalf, detailing his side of the story word for word.
Your name will seldom change over a life time and it is important that your name be respected. I hope that he comes to know that before too much time passes.
JoeyA
iba7467 said:
I like public floggings where the proof of damage is unrefutable and in this case, it appears to be so. (Just because I like it, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do). While the sadist in me enjoys them ever so much, it is possible for public floggings to become a vigilante mentality where people of single-mindedness can attempt to vilify another person for revenge of a personal nature. The public humiliation of another human being can be gratifying from a revenge perspective however it does nothing to correct the wrong-doing and nothing to rehabilitate the person.
I smile at the saying, "Public floggings will commence until morale improves".
JoeyA
Point Missed
I think a major point in all of this is being missed (except by Jay). Many people keep saying that this was a bet not owned up to.
Actionhound/Jeff Kessler did not welch on a bet, he welch on a debt. Both are serious offenses but in this case Jay had to come out of pocket as there was a commitment to John Schmidt for the ring game. Obviously, if Actionhound had simply made a bet & not paid, Jay would be out $300 but not negative in his pocket.
I would suggest that we take up a collection to reimburse Jay BUT that would just enable Actionhound even more into not repaying his debt. Actionhound is full of excuses & having his debt paid for would be just another way for him to justify in his mind of not paying this. I have weighed this in my mind & don't know what is the right way to proceed. I don't want to make anything easier for Actionhound but don't feel that Jay, as part of the AZ community, should be held soley liable for being the facilitator of a group being involved in the ring game.
My thoughts are that:
1) The rest of the participants in the stake of the ring game should have stepped up to offer to repay Jay a share of the $300. They all had a potential benefit in John Schmidt being able to play in the game and even though Jay offered to be the go to guy, this was a group effort. Playing devil's advocate, Jay was the one that took Actionhound as a standup guy & agreed to late payment of his share.
2) Upon hearing of the welch by Actionhound, if I was John Schmidt myself I would have offered to pay the $300. John could easily make up the $300 at next years Derby with a few straight pool lessons for an hour.
3)I would send Jay $5 (get 60 of us to do so) and then Actionhound would not only have Jay on his back for life but 60 more people after him for the debt. Knowing Jay, I don't think he would agree to this but if not, I will surely buy him a few beers in Vegas in May to take away some of the pain.
I think a major point in all of this is being missed (except by Jay). Many people keep saying that this was a bet not owned up to.
Actionhound/Jeff Kessler did not welch on a bet, he welch on a debt. Both are serious offenses but in this case Jay had to come out of pocket as there was a commitment to John Schmidt for the ring game. Obviously, if Actionhound had simply made a bet & not paid, Jay would be out $300 but not negative in his pocket.
I would suggest that we take up a collection to reimburse Jay BUT that would just enable Actionhound even more into not repaying his debt. Actionhound is full of excuses & having his debt paid for would be just another way for him to justify in his mind of not paying this. I have weighed this in my mind & don't know what is the right way to proceed. I don't want to make anything easier for Actionhound but don't feel that Jay, as part of the AZ community, should be held soley liable for being the facilitator of a group being involved in the ring game.
My thoughts are that:
1) The rest of the participants in the stake of the ring game should have stepped up to offer to repay Jay a share of the $300. They all had a potential benefit in John Schmidt being able to play in the game and even though Jay offered to be the go to guy, this was a group effort. Playing devil's advocate, Jay was the one that took Actionhound as a standup guy & agreed to late payment of his share.
2) Upon hearing of the welch by Actionhound, if I was John Schmidt myself I would have offered to pay the $300. John could easily make up the $300 at next years Derby with a few straight pool lessons for an hour.
3)I would send Jay $5 (get 60 of us to do so) and then Actionhound would not only have Jay on his back for life but 60 more people after him for the debt. Knowing Jay, I don't think he would agree to this but if not, I will surely buy him a few beers in Vegas in May to take away some of the pain.
easy-e said:
Because John had the most to benefit from all of this. A 'free shot' into winning the ring game. I knew that would get criticism but it is what I personally would have done and offered Jay if I was JS.
I don't know about this years DCC, but in the past - participants in the ring games received free entry into all other tournments & free hotel.
- Status