Mr. Mark Griffin & Mr. Bill Stork

[Mr Hoppe]

Carl...Sounds to me like they're completely justified in banning you. You're a troublemaker who doesn't want to play by the rules. I'd ban you too. You should take this blather somewhere else, or it might get you banned here too...not that you'd probably care.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Finally, something that Scott and I agree upon, and a perfect fit for his condescending and frank communication style.

 

[justnum]

I don't know how anybody else feels, but you don't appear to be helping at all. Your "concise explanation" is nothing more than dredging up rumors of a totally unrelated situation. Given that you have admittedly had an issue with Mr. Griffin in the past, your participation here looks like a weak attempt at character assasination. A real "concise explanation" would be telling him that its not advisable to threaten a business with legal action so they have to change their rules to what you personally want. Just sayin...

I agree with your suggestion that making threats does not help any situation. But that does not explain why he was kicked out. It suggests what he should not do if he has a suggestion. And McConnell is past taking ideas for how to approach MG with his suggestions. Right now McConnell is searching for a better explanation than the one given to him.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

am I reading a completely different thread?

What it seems Mr. McConnell is looking for is reinstatement and a letter of apology.

The explanation was provided by him in the letter he shared from BCAPL's Director of Referees in his original post. What "better explanation" could he be seeking? One that absolves him of any wrongdoing?

Best,
Brian kc

 

[justnum]

What it seems Mr. McConnell is looking for is reinstatement and a letter of apology.

The explanation was provided by him in the letter he shared from BCAPL's Director of Referees in his original post.

Best,
Brian kc

That is a more worthwhile pursuit than a better explanation. Let's support him as he pursues that direction.

 

[DGunter]

You can't give a better explanation because you don't have the whole story. From the email posted by the OP its obvious that this isn't the first time this popped up.

The reason for our actions is your continued disruption and interference of an existing league

Equally bothersome is the time and effort our office has spent to explain our policies to you.

The TLDR original post doesn't scratch the surface obviously, so you were completely out of line to start in with this...

There are rumors that the acquisition of BCAPL was obtained with questionable means.

It is clear the BCAPL is not interested in customer service issues. Happens with startups they want new people and lose the loyal brand customers.

Your "explanation" is nothing more than you trying to somehow connect those two circumstances and, in not so many words, that it is evidently Mr. Griffin's MO to ban/remove people who he feels are a threat without any sort of fair recourse.

This is just one instance of MG's action causing someone else to withdraw or be withdrawn from an organization.

So yeah...my explanation? The original poster is a troublemaker. Situation explained...he was dealt with in the manner that he deserved.

 

[Boo's Girl]

instead of the BCAPL and MG/BS apologizing to Mr. McConnell for ending his silly diatribe.... how about Mr. McConnell apologizes to the BCAPL for wasting their time "trying to explain" something that is simply put? HMMMMM?

 

[bfdlad]

Ok, here is where I am confused a little here. I do not know mcConnell but I do know Griffin and Bill Stock. If I went to Griffin and had a suggestion to improve the game or play in the leagues I know that for a fact 100% that Griffin would listen to it. Mark G loves pool and is a good businessman. So if he can make the game better he will do it. Now if the idea I went to him with does not work for one reason or another then it just don't work. I may think its great but sometimes they have to look at a bigger picture on a national scale that would prevent my idea from working.

So if a decision is made that my idea cannot be put into play for WHATEVER reason thats just the way it has to be. I can't keep going on about how its not right and going to the league players with a petition to change the rules. I have my option at that point to continue playing under the set rules or not.

I know that I do not need to defend Mark, Bill or BCAPL as they are more than capable of doing it themselves. I guess the only point I am making here is that if the proposed rule change was a viable one that made the game better, it would have been put into place already. However I am sure there would be another thread in the place of this one saying "Griffin changes rules to help his friends win" So no matter what there would be issue.

 

[Tim-n-NM]

Sometimes a business needs to cut its losses and move on. That is what they have done, it is perfectly legal to do and they did it. This unhappy coustomer should now move on and find a place where his rules fit in. But from the sounds of it he will have problems no matter where he goes. Some people think they know more than everyone else in all walks of life.
This is a great example of that.

 

[justnum]

Y
So yeah...my explanation? The original poster is a troublemaker. Situation explained...he was dealt with in the manner that he deserved.

I process the information available to readers on AZ. Is the story complete doubtfully, but it is all readers have to go on. McConnell is stirring up a hornet's nest with his OP, the idea I had was to illustrate one aspect of MG character from posts and comments about him and relate it to McConnell to explain what happened to him.

There were several posts that McConnell could just sign up for a new league, go somewhere else or that he was wrong. I described a portrait of who has the power to ban McConnell based on limited information, the same information readers on AZ have. And the result was there were two instances that MG was questioned and people questioned the solution. McConnell makes that three in the AZ post history.

McConnell is banned from BCAPL and his intention in the OP is to communicate with MG. I can communicate with McConnell and offered some ideas that should help him move on from the situation and that it is over, instead of push for answers he has already be given just move on.

But people continue to force an image different from that one McConnell has about MG and does not address the issue the OP is having. This thread is started by the OP and I am discussing what he is interested in, those are relevant details about past behavior or actions similar to what he is describing. I am not saying MG is good or bad, I am saying it is likely this can happen and people just move on from it.

 

[bfdlad]

I agree with your suggestion that making threats does not help any situation. But that does not explain why he was kicked out. It suggests what he should not do if he has a suggestion. And McConnell is past taking ideas for how to approach MG with his suggestions. Right now McConnell is searching for a better explanation than the one given to him.

Justnum, I am not looking for a fight with you as I have always taken your posts as good ones. In this case it seems you are trying to defend the OP for some reason when there is glaring evidence that he was out of line somehow. I will explain what I see as bluntly as possible so as it does not get lost in words.

McConnell had a idea for a rule change and put it to the BCAPL.

BCAPL rejected the idea for whatever reason (Don't matter why)

McConnell Went to local BCAPL with a petition to change the rules and was shut down again.

BCAPL explained why (more than once based on original post)

McConnell didn't want to listen and became a constant disrupion to the BCAPL HQ and to the BCAPL local.

McConnell would not let it go and so they let him go.

I think it is as simple as that. If he did not agree with the rule he should quit the league and move on. This is as black and white as I can make it from what I have seem from the McConnell's own statements.

 

[justnum]

Sometimes a business needs to cut its losses and move on. That is what they have done, it is perfectly legal to do and they did it. This unhappy coustomer should now move on and find a place where his rules fit in. But from the sounds of it he will have problems no matter where he goes. Some people think they know more than everyone else in all walks of life.
This is a great example of that.

The trouble is when the unhappy customer doesn't think he did anything wrong. Which is the case here. Since he thinks he didn't do anything wrong, he could want back in. But after an experience like this I'd doubt that.

Maybe its the hapless customer doesn't want other customers to experience what happen to him in his rare set of circumstances. Whatever it is this thread is hot.

 

[justnum]

Justnum, I am not looking for a fight with you as I have always taken your posts as good ones. In this case it seems you are trying to defend the OP for some reason when there is glaring evidence that he was out of line somehow. I will explain what I see as bluntly as possible so as it does not get lost in words.

McConnell had a idea for a rule change and put it to the BCAPL.

BCAPL rejected the idea for whatever reason (Don't matter why)

McConnell Went to local BCAPL with a petition to change the rules and was shut down again.

BCAPL explained why (more than once based on original post)

McConnell didn't want to listen and became a constant disrupion to the BCAPL HQ and to the BCAPL local.

McConnell would not let it go and so they let him go.

I think it is as simple as that. If he did not agree with the rule he should quit the league and move on. This is as black and white as I can make it from what I have seem from the McConnell's own statements.

I agree he should let it go. And I was thinking with the posts I made that McConnell understand that it may not be the first time MG has been in a situation to the one McConnell is describing. And that instead of hold a grudge he just accept that in this situation he is powerless.

 

[hangemhigh]

Whatever it is this thread is hot.

People love Train wrecks, you and the OP have managed to make something out of nothing.

 

[Tim-n-NM]

Justnum, I am not looking for a fight with you as I have always taken your posts as good ones. In this case it seems you are trying to defend the OP for some reason when there is glaring evidence that he was out of line somehow. I will explain what I see as bluntly as possible so as it does not get lost in words.

McConnell had a idea for a rule change and put it to the BCAPL.

BCAPL rejected the idea for whatever reason (Don't matter why)

McConnell Went to local BCAPL with a petition to change the rules and was shut down again.

BCAPL explained why (more than once based on original post)

McConnell didn't want to listen and became a constant disrupion to the BCAPL HQ and to the BCAPL local.

McConnell would not let it go and so they let him go.

I think it is as simple as that. If he did not agree with the rule he should quit the league and move on. This is as black and white as I can make it from what I have seem from the McConnell's own statements.

+1 ..............good post

 

[DGunter]

Actually...he was not banned by Mr. Griffin. Per the OP, he was informed of his ban via an email from Mr. Stock...and was banned at the request of his LO. However he titled the OP to Mr. Griffin and Mr. Stork <--LOL

So I'm not exactly sure why you would even attempt to associate MG's past actions with this current one, as I don't see how he played a part in OP's banishment.

 

[JAM]

Mr. Mark Griffin CEO BCAPL &
Bill Stork Head Referree BCAPL
Dear Mark Griffin, CEO BCAPL &
Bill Stock, Rules Administrator, BCAPL

This letter is intended to make you aware that your methods were sneaky and underhanded and unprofessional. Since my last communication with you, you have removed me from your incoming mail list, I have sent you two E-Mails since then that have gone unanswered. That only leaves me with a public forum for communicating with you. I am aware of your desire to keep all public information of a positive nature, but you have asked for this one!
On the following date I received the following message by E-Mail:
Carl McConnell 1/31/2011
PO Box 1788
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Member # 1119-0179914


Mr. McConnell

Effective immediately, you are hereby banned from any further participation in any BCA Pool League or BCAPL sanctioned events or tournaments.

The reason for our actions is your continued disruption and interference of an existing league (BCAPL # 263). Equally bothersome is the time and effort our office has spent to explain our policies to you. You have insisted that the Juan De Fuca Pool League change their rules, going so far as to threaten legal action. Leagues are allowed to alter rules they feel are in the best interests of the players of the local league. In the best interest of the leagues, we feel that your participation is a detriment .

The banishment is indefinite. However, you may apply to the National Office after June 1st, 2011 provided there are no further disruptive actions on your part or others on your behalf. We would evaluate your situation at that time.


Bill Stock
CueSports International
BCA Pool League
Director of Referees
Rules Administrator
bill@playcsipool.com


cc:
Kevin Fong, League Operator #1119
Trish Holden, League Operator #263
Darcy Williams, WBCA President
Bret Baker, WBCA Vice-President
Bill Henderson, WBCA Events Coordinator

Isn’t that a mouthful of BS.
All of this without the benefit of a trial of my piers or hearing of any kind, just dictatorial and hearsay!
All that I did was to circulate a petition to change the rules back to BCAPL Rules and acquiring a vote of 54.17% in favor. During this not one player was bothered during their game, I have a witness. For this you accuse me of disruption of league #263. It couldn’t be the bulletin board notices, I didn’t require anyone to read them and I had no other contact with any of them.
Our mission has and always will be to serve our membership and give them the most enjoyable playing experience possible. This is just another step in that direction. Thank you all for your support!! ( Bill Stock & Mark Griffin)
Who was it that told you that the Juan De Fuca Pool League had 32 members? 1st Code of Ethics. Fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. Is this fair and honest? Does it expand Pool Leagues? Please see their Web-Site and then go to week #17 and read the item highlighted in yellow.
And who was it that told you that I had interfered with the League Play? 1st Code of Ethics. Fraud, deceit & misrepresentation!
How was my de-sanctioning done with respect and courtesy, it was done impersonally by mail. Without mention of petitioning or of hearing by a jury of my piers just presumed guilt. So much for the misrepresenting or availability of sanctioning for me. What about your obligation for in a “fair and honest manner”? What happen to”dignity", respect and courtesy”?
And what about reflecting discredit upon the sport the BCAPL sanctioned (or advertised to be sanctioned) leagues or the BCAPL when others hear about this?
What about the time that the BCAPL has in this situation, I find the following:
Please email Bill Stock at bills@playcsipool.com with any questions regarding these and any BCAPL rules. (I did this and now he’s trying to use that as one of the excuses for the de-sanctioning letter above.)
I notified the league operator and the BCAPL about the results of my petitioning by E-Mail but the league operator acted quickly to request de-sanctioning before the BCAPL could read their E-Mail and they jumped to rescue the league operators request for de-sanctioning and sent out the de-sanctioning letter.
On or before Oct. 15, 2010 The Juan de Fuca Pool League held it’s preseason meeting. A new rule was introduced, calling the 9-Ball if you were going to play a combination, while it passed the method of representation wasn’t clear. The presentation was do you want to continue using last years rules, the vote was unanimous for the members present. However, The current league operator was under the mistaken impression that we had played call pocket 9-Ball last year and promptly announced that this year we are going to play this same game. It also didn’t matter to her if over half of the players in the league were smokers and were outside at the time smoking. Before the first week of play the game changed again to call pocket 9-Ball on all shots without a vote of the membership, foul is ball-in-hand. I’m going to draw your attention to: violations are in red:
CODE OF ETHICS :
We shall not engage in illegal activity involving moral turpitude or conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

We shall not make a material false statement, nor deliberately fail to disclose a material requested fact, in
connection with an application for sanctioning with the BCAPL

We shall at all times treat all players, other leagues and the public with dignity, respect and courtesy.

We shall always conduct ourselves and our league business in a fair and honest manner refraining at all times from conduct or practices that inhibit the expansion of pool leagues or that reflect discredit upon the sport other BCAPL-sanctioned (or advertised as to be sanctioned) leagues or the BCAPL

We shall not engage in or permit any unauthorized use of the Association's name or logo or the unauthorized use of any other materials in which the BCAPL claims a proprietary interest.

We shall not misrepresent the existence or availability of BCAPL sanctioning for any league or player.

Affirmation
League Operators are bound to abide by the aforementioned Pledge and Code of Ethics as a condition of sanctioning with the BCA Pool League, subject to the review of the BCAPL. The BCAPL reserves the right to deny any applicant, as well as revoke any league sanctioning from an operator it deems, at its sole and absolute discretion, operates in an unfair or dishonest manner, inhibits the expansion of pool leagues, LIKE TRISHES REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF LEAGUE MEMBERS DURING 2009/2010 & 2010/2011 LEAGUE YEARS, discredits the sport or other BCAPL sanctioned leagues, discredits the BCAPL or operates to undermine the growth of the BCAPL league system by negligent, unethical or immoral behavior.

League Operator_________________________________________________Date____________________

As important as that is the league operator didn’t stop there. At the beginning of the year she was untruthful to the BCAPL, you see her league didn’t have the required number of players or number of teams before league started as required for league sanctioning, 24 members with 5/4 man teams doesn’t meet the criteria. The BCAPL Web-Site over ten times states that it takes 30 members with 6/4man teams to be sanctioned by the BCAPL. Check it out on their Web-Site www.juandefucapoolleague.com (this league has no subs), and www.playbca.com.

Under the BCAPL Rules Book USA Pool League Match Playing Rules.
BCA PL Rules: Unless contradicted or amended in these regulations, The Official Rules of the BCA pool league will govern play.

Statement from playbca.com.
League News


BCAPL Announces New Rule BookThe BCA Pool League (BCAPL) today announced the creation of a new rule book designed exclusively for BCAPL play. Over one year in the making, The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League becomes effective October 1, 2007. At that time, all BCAPL play will be governed by the BCAPL Official Rules. According to Mark Griffin, "The BCAPL believes the time is right for the introduction of its own set of rules. We feel our loyal and valued members deserve a single, easy to understand document covering all aspects of BCAPL play. Our new book will ensure consistent application of the rules regardless of whether you play in a local, state, regional or national event."

As much good as you do for the game of pool you are equally destroying it by your position on your own rules, hence your recent lack of growth. Get a clue Mark Griffin! Once again make me a member in good standing and include a letter of apology.
Am I having the most enjoyable playing experience possible? DEFENATELY NOT!!
Thank You,
C. Carl McConnell

Sometimes when people express themselves in black and white, it may be helpful to use a different tone.

When thoughts come across as angry, the recipient of the letter may not understand why a person is upset. Instead, they can only digest the tone of the communication.

When this happens, it doesn't get the message conveyed that you want to, and everybody on both sides lose.

 

[justnum]

Actually...he was not banned by Mr. Griffin. Per the OP, he was informed of his ban via an email from Mr. Stock...and was banned at the request of his LO. However he titled the OP to Mr. Griffin and Mr. Stork <--LOL

So I'm not exactly sure why you would even attempt to associate MG's past actions with this current one, as I don't even see how he played a part in OP's banishment.

In the event that his requests ever do make it to the top I am preparing him for what can happen, at least one situation that can happen.

The OP had trouble at the regional level with the BCAPL officials and is trying to enlist the top tier of the organization to support his efforts. I am telling him if he had trouble with the bottom people that the top people usually sport the same culture as bottom people.

 

[akaTrigger]

<snip>

Just don't play if it's so bad...............Oh, you can't.

:rotflmao1: :rotflmao1:

 

[DGunter]

I am telling him if he had trouble with the bottom people that the top people usually sport the same culture as bottom people.

Are you serious??? You said nothing like that at any point in this thread. From the word go you have been posting about MG and never at any point acknowledged that his ban originated from a request by his own LO and was done by BS....not MG.

 

[jason]

The trouble is when the unhappy customer doesn't think he did anything wrong.

...but he did. He was continuallly disrupting the BCAPL #263. In the eyes of those who dictate the rules that is.