leader should be able to exclude a player from derby

Hello,
I was wandering if it could be possible in a neighborhood, for leader and co-leader, to decide if some of the member will not participate in the next derby (that is, the equivalent in the advanced setting of "not participate in derby").
This is needed because sometimes you have in the neighborhood some players that you do not want to expell from your group, but the player is no longer active in the derby but still "in the list of those participating"... and since there is no way to directly contact a player like with an email, a message and similar, the only solution now is to expell him (and again, you can't give him an explanation, a warning, a message "come back if you start again playing"... nothing :( )
In this way this player is a big problem for the group (because the team will face other teams counting this player as playing in the derby, whili he is not), but you have no way to solve this problem (unless expelling him...).
So please, could be possible to let at least the leader to change the status of the members from "participating" to "not participating" to the derby?
Thank you!!

Daniela

Excellent idea :thumbsup:

This has been brought up on several occasions and will not be done. In your scenario, it would really help the NH be more properly matched for the derby. However, there could be leaders/co-leaders who aren't as honest and nice and may opt people out who are ready and willing to participate in the derby.

Unfortunately, the only way to fix this situation is to kick out those who are not as active, but immediately send them an invitation to return. I'm sure they would figure out that it was a reason you kicked them out when they see an invitation back into the NH.

Hello,
thanks for your answer, but I do not understand one thing... how can you invite back someone, that in that case is no longer in your NH, and is not one of your friends?
The only way to invite someone is to have him between your friends of fb or game center (or at leat, every time I try to invite someone, I can't do it because we are not friends...), so... what you propose will not work (al least, in my situation...).
Or maybe am I doing something wrong?
Thanks again,

Daniela

btw... why a leader and co leaders should stop someone active from taking part in the derby...? It does not make sense from my point of view... a leader and coleader not correct as you describe, will never have good players willing to stay in their NH... Usually the problem is "a player living in the NB not playing as good as he could, and leaving the burden of the derby to the other members", and not "leader and co leaders are bad and are forcing me to stay in their NH as a slave..." ;)
Keeping someone out of the derby should be a way to punish him a little, to let him know "please do something better"... without expelling him (you are giving him a second chance!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shundue

Hello,
thanks for your answer, but I do not understand one thing... how can you invite back someone, that in that case is no longer in your NH, and is not one of your friends?
The only way to invite someone is to have him between your friends of fb or game center (or at leat, every time I try to invite someone, I can't do it because we are not friends...), so... what you propose will not work (al least, in my situation...).
Or maybe am I doing something wrong?
Thanks again,

Daniela

btw... why a leader and co leaders should stop someone active from taking part in the derby...? It does not make sense from my point of view... a leader and coleader not correct as you describe, will never have good players willing to stay in their NH... Usually the problem is "a player living in the NB not playing as good as he could, and leaving the burden of the derby to the other members", and not "leader and co leaders are bad and are forcing me to stay in their NH as a slave..." ;)
Keeping someone out of the derby should be a way to punish him a little, to let him know "please do something better"... without expelling him (you are giving him a second chance!!)

---

If someone "punished" me I would not want to stay, second chance or not. Hay day is supposed to be fun IMHO; it's a game that many play for recreation.

I know some neighbourhoods take it seriously; some do not. As a Leader I wouldn't dream of telling my lovely friends how to play; nor would I want to opt them out of the Derby. That decision must be theirs.

I know that way of playing doesn't suit everyone, but it's good enough for me. A great strength of HD is that you can choose how to play, and how to run your neighbourhood.

Happy farming!

I would not support this idea at all.

Each person should be able to control ALL aspects of their game themselves.

I would never want another person to be able to control my game, deciding if I would derby or not derby. That is up to ME. And I would never want to have that much power and control over anyone else's game -- for any reason.

As the leader of my Champions League NH, we have had inactive players come back to e game, the. opt in for the next derby, thinking they will play, 2 days later they disappear again into the fog of Real Life. They do make the derby more complex for us in that week, but I reach out to them politely via kik or in the game chat, and if I don't hear back, I boot them with an immediate reinvite.

I suggest the OP ensures that each of your neighbors are also added to your game as a friend in GC or on FB, and that you set up an outside-game channel to use to communicate, like kik. That way you can talk with your absent neighbors, and if you must boot them for derby matching, you can reinvite them.

I agree, I am really surprised the game doesn't have such an ability. It would be far nicer to simply opt out members who have an inactive period as opposed to kicking them out of the neighborhood all the time.

Fellow SuperCell game Clash of Clans has such abilities available to leaders for Clan War.

I would support it (and have done on many threads) IMO the Pros outweigh the Cons.

There are many reasons why a player might not be able access their game/opt out - hospitalisation, illness, broken device, lost device, no internet and of course simply forgettng to opt out before going on that 3 week cruise...or some might be young children (perhaps your children's friends) who simply don't get it, kids you are happy to have in your NH but have no control over their device. Whatever, there are plenty of reasons people can't opt out themselves.

If the Leader could opt them out life would be easier.

Not everyone wants to be on Facebook, not everyone has/can/wants to download another chat app like Kik and then the leader ends up with people with all kinds of different channels of communication - or none at all.

It would be much simpler to opt someone out, then the onus is on them to contact the leader and sort it out when they're ready to play the Derby again.

If a Leader opted out a player through malice, then why would that player want to stay in that NH anyway?! It's only 1 week of Derby, it's really not a huge control for someone else to have over your game.

Thanks for having answerd the exactly same thing I think for me!! ;)
It is not, from my point of view, a way of "limiting the freedom of someone else", but a way of "protecting the others and your NH". "I'm free untill my freedom does not create problems to others' s freedom"... I understand anyway the other points of view, and I respect them: every one approach the game, and the derby, in different ways :)
But I agree too that not everybody want to become friend in "the real life too" on fb, maybe they do not want to complicate their life following another application, group etc.. We have a group on FB for our NH, and not all the members are in, some of them does not have FB, or want to do that... :(
Anyway, let's see if before or later this functionality will be introduced!
Thanks all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmallChange

I would support it (and have done on many threads) IMO the Pros outweigh the Cons.

There are many reasons why a player might not be able access their game/opt out - hospitalisation, illness, broken device, lost device, no internet and of course simply forgettng to opt out before going on that 3 week cruise...or some might be young children (perhaps your children's friends) who simply don't get it, kids you are happy to have in your NH but have no control over their device. Whatever, there are plenty of reasons people can't opt out themselves.

If the Leader could opt them out life would be easier.

Not everyone wants to be on Facebook, not everyone has/can/wants to download another chat app like Kik and then the leader ends up with people with all kinds of different channels of communication - or none at all.

It would be much simpler to opt someone out, then the onus is on them to contact the leader and sort it out when they're ready to play the Derby again.

If a Leader opted out a player through malice, then why would that player want to stay in that NH anyway?! It's only 1 week of Derby, it's really not a huge control for someone else to have over your game.

---

I am very much against this idea, or any idea that would allow someone who isn't me adjust my personal settings on my own farm. If there's a problem with my game-play not syncing with the accepted norms of my neighbourhood then there are options in place to allow my neighbourhood leader to deal with this that do not involve infringing on my farm and my choices. We have a neighbourhood chat - speak to me about it. If this is not successful and my life (real and gaming) and priorities do not align with the neighbourhood's then we all have the option to opt-out ourselves. And we all have the option to leave a neighbourhood. And if my neighbourhood leader is unsatisfied with my contribution (derby or otherwise), the option exists to remove me from the 'hood. And that is what they should do.

This request comes again and again from neighbourhood leaders and it is always accompanied by a lament about removing neighbourhood members. But there are responsibilities that accompany being a neighbourhood leader, and along with determining how the neighbourhood should function comes acting to ensure that function. It falls to my neighbourhood leader to actually lead. Which might mean removing members (including me) from the 'hood.

So, as a neighbourhood leader I would ask the OP to determine whether their neighbourhood priorities include derby participation and to follow through in maintaining those priorities in their own 'hood. Because you have the tools to do this now. And you have the responsibility to do so. And you have the ability to reevaluate your neighbourhood priorities if you're feeling conflicted about the outcome.