Printable View
It seems that they left something very important out of this derby update: the leader should be able to change the derby status (in or out) for the neighborhood members. Otherwise, because the default status is "in", the vacationing and inactive members will still be "in" the derby, which was the problem that this update was supposed to fix. What a head-scratcher!
~powdermonkey
Agree !!!
We have members who are offline for like weeks but they are friends and we know they could get back some day but they are still opt-in ... this update makes no sense to me it doesn't solves the problem.
Yes. We are having the same problem too.
because we aren't GC or FB friends we can't just kick them out then invite them to rejoin.
I AGREE.
And Leaders have to see all players status (in/out)
I also agree with you!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by powdermonkey
You can see the status of each player from your Neighborhood list (tap on the NH house). :) I don't think we need to give such powers to Leaders / Co-leaders. Would create a lot of grief amongst players. It has to be the players choice to opt in/out.
Cheers,
Nick
Nick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
4 of our NH opted out, but they are showing as in.
Why isn't the default OUT it just makes so much more sense. Yes people might miss out if they don't change their own settings, but this way we are ALL disadvantaged :(
Our Leader won't kick out non active players because she isn't connected to them on GC or FB so can't send them an invite to rejoin.
Can an you explain why the leader selecting the team works on Clash but you don't want to do it here please?!
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by powdermonkey
im a leader of a small NH and do not want to kick our children out. One member my daughter, her phone is broken she can not log in to opt out, another two do not play derby, it would be good to opt them out myself so we are not matched to 6 players when only 2 or 3 of us participate.
Standard could just be set or changed to standard opt out, so it will require an active choice to opt in, instead of standard being opt in. The feature doesn't change anything the way it is, and give no help to NHs with inactive members and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
But making the default as opt in, are you not making the choice for the inactive players? If the derby is important enough and they want to play, then it is THEIR choice and THEIR responsibility to opt in. Default should have been opt out. I think there were enough explanations provided for people to know what they needed to do in order to participate in the derby, so making the default as opt in solved nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
..which has has been said/asked for, since the beginning of time!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patches
It NEEDS to be OPT OUT as default, for all of the reasons stated over many months... It makes absolutely no sense for it to be automatically set to in :/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
Thats fine if the players are online and can opt out, but anyone taking a break from the game does not log in or see it so they can not opt out. A leader should be able to opt them out when we know they are not playing.
and please don't say kick them out the NH I refuse to kick my child out just because her phone is broken and she can not play, I also refuse to kick out my elders kids as they don't play derby.
Agreed with others...Opt Out should be default. U want to play, u click the button to get in. Inactive players won't be around to opt themselves out so what's the point of having them be in the derby from the start? It's simple logic, SC. Back to the drawing board!
Not all players are able to participate when the Derby kicks in. That would have been horrible for those sleeping when it started (talking about the Derby after the update) since they would have been opted out with no chance to opt in again for a week. Not a good option in my book. Changing a default setting from on to off, causes a lot of confusion for the majority of the players. Not all are here on the forums, or on our social media pages.
I doubt that we will change the setting to default as "opted out" or allow Leaders / Co-Leaders to opt out members. It would not serve the purpose of players opting in/out based on their own preference.
Cheers,
Nick
Sorry, still doesn't make much sense. As been mentioned, default opt in does not solve the problem of inactive players. They won't be around to opt themselves out..so they will be counted in as part of the matchmaking process. U don't see a problem with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
Players don't need to be on the forum or part of social media to be informed of the change. Make the description clearer "You are not in next week's derby, please check box if u want to participate in next week's derby" Should be easy enough directions to follow.
I can see how current option can work...everyone in ur NH needs to be super active. This default opt in gives NHs no other option than to kick the inactives out...but what if they don't want to? Opt out as default would've been better, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powdermonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patches
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
So how does this change or improve anything then? Neighborhoods with inactive or non derby players are still handicapped as those players wont sign in just to opt out. SMH.
If you have inactive players who do not respond to chat messages, do not participate in the Derby or do any other helping around the neighborhood, you can choose to keep them or let them go.
In any case, this is an idea which has been noted by our team, and for now we don't have any plans to make any changes to them.
Cheers,
Nick
?....?...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
They em have a whole week 7 days to opt in if they are active and want it they will do it in that time frame
ok so I have a better idea leave it as opt in but give leader power to opt out. That way we can opt member out that we know is not playing rather than kicking them out the hood , seems simple to me.
I have a hood of two mums and our kids and one friend
two derby, others don't so we get against 6 people. I can not opt out my daughter she can't opt out her phone is broken
i refuse to kick our kids out
but as leader I could opt them out when I know they can't get online and do it
so im saying keep the default as opt in, but please allow leader to have ability to opt out members who are inactive. They are in active they can't opt out.
Dear Nick,Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
What they have commented before is right.
You have players that are still in derby but they are on vacation, offline, stop playing HD...
But we can't kick them because they are friends.
Sow it would be great if the leader (Maybe CO-Leaders) can choose who's in!
Just like in Clan Wars (Clash of clans)
Have a nice day Nick!
-Adam
I totally agree with this.
We have one person that is very nice and helps everyone but is hospitalized and cannot play. We don't want her to leave or be offended but we don't want it to negatively impact the remaining members in the neighborhood.
Leaders should be able to change the opt In/Out status.
Thanks for your consideration
This is a tough one... I see both sides. It's hard to remind myself that I do not represent the majority of the players of this game.
I can see why players - even Leaders and Co-Leaders - should not be given the power to make other players opt-in or opt out. That's just asking for trouble and would be a source of contention forever.
But it's obvious TO ME that the default setting for players should be "opted out". It would allow active players to opt in as they choose when they check in. Bring back the little Scarecrow guy with a helpful message and a big red "X" or something on the Derby Board. "You missed the start of the Derby? Sorry! Good news is there's another one next week. See you there! "
The one-time possible frustration of logging in after the deadline and being unable to participate is very small in comparison to the on-going and prolonged impact of having an non-participant affecting the rest of the team's chances.
This is especially true after the recent update! Success is more important than before because of League Play and the rewards gained or lost based on participation.
So the solution is to jettison them from the Neighborhood... Except those same inactive players that aren't connected to social media to see the updates and clarifications are the same players who will have no clue as to why they were booted. Is THAT frustration not a concern?
All told, there's no easy solution, but I feel like defaulting to Opted Out presents the LEAST frustration for players long term.
Or at the very least make the default opted out- that way they can purposely opt in if they want to play in the derby. We have members that do not communicate on the message board, so they can't see that we asked them to opt out since they're not playing. We are considering kicking them out of the neighborhood just so they don't bring our derby score down. The way it is currently set up isn't fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdermonkey
This was supposed to make the Derby better, more equal and more fun. There is no fun in having to kick friends from the nh just because they cannot play at the moment. And since they are not online cannot change their status. Surely opting someone out of the Derby is a tiny decision compared with kicking someone from the nh altogether. Nick no offence but you are hiding behind an argument that is not holding water. The leader should determine how the nh is run, including the Derby and not the random computer. Should not we as members of a nh have the say how it is run? Not sure I like being bullied by the game in kicking friends out of the hood in order to be able to play the Derby. Give the leader the power to change the status. If a leader abuses that power well, they already have the power to kick people, so what is different? Ppl will just leave that hood and the leader will play by him or herself. No harm done.
And when I kick these players who don't opt out? They still can't derby, and now they are out of a neighborhood. Sounds like a lot more grief than being toggled out of a feature they weren't using and hurting the rest of the town by being opted into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
For reference: I am about to purge 10 people who play the game but who don't derby because they won't opt out and won't perform derby tasks. I tend to think they are just obtuse because it is a casual game, but in my town, if you are opted in to derby, you had better derby or find another neighborhood.
I would much rather keep these people at least a while longer to see what's up with them and educate them, but because of the horrible design of the chat system (no PMs) I can't keep tabs on my own members to see what is up with them.
It should be that opt out is the default setting. And that if they had no activity in the last derby they are automatically opted out of the next one. This way they can go to advanced settings and opt back in whenever they want.
NickQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
It would be easy enough to change it now (with, as someone else said) the scarecrow information thing, to allow the Leader to opt people out.
This update was supposed to HELP neighbourhoods, it's not. You have been given a lot of very good reasons why it NEEDS to be able to be controlled by the leader. If the Leader OPTs someone out it can come up in the part that shows whether the task log is visible or not, so the leaders actions are there for all to see.
It works in Clash, I don't understand your reluctance to make this (much asked for!!!) change, that would make things much better for the players who do not want to 'kick out' friends, children etc who are UNABLE to opt themselves out (for many different reasons).
Let Leader/Co-Leader Do the remaining derby task of other members in the group.
Please let the Leader/Co-Leader do the remaining derby task of other members in the group. If a group member has done only 1 or 2 task and because of him/her the group is loosing then the Leader/Co-Leader must get the opportunity to complete the remaining tasks.
Please allow the leader to make the final decision on who will be in the derby as we have a few inactive players. Just like clash of clans where the leader can make the final decision on war but they still can set a preference
+1 to this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyClarky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef99
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyClarky
100% agree with this!! I'm not sure how they thought it would improve anything with opt in being the default?? But this would be a perfect solution.
http://forum.supercell.net/showthrea...t-Out-of-DerbyQuote:
Originally Posted by CrazyClarky
[QUOTE=CheddarLimbo;5429693]This is a tough one... I see both sides. It's hard to remind myself that I do not represent the majority of the players of this game.
I can see why players - even Leaders and Co-Leaders - should not be given the power to make other players opt-in or opt out. That's just asking for trouble and would be a source of contention forever.
But it's obvious TO ME that the default setting for players should be "opted out". It would allow active players to opt in as they choose when they check in. Bring back the little Scarecrow guy with a helpful message and a big red "X" or something on the Derby Board. "You missed the start of the Derby? Sorry! Good news is there's another one next week. See you there! "
The one-time possible frustration of logging in after the deadline and being unable to participate is very small in comparison to the on-going and prolonged impact of having an non-participant affecting the rest of the team's chances.
Absolutely agree. It seems to me MUCH more sensible for opt out to be default.
Also like ( as a back up plan) the idea that sc could auto opt out players who haven't been participating for a while.
This!!! All of this!! I've got several young players who help where/when they can and I really don't want to boot them completely out of the neighborhood, which seems really harsh. But they are also really handicapping our derby (the update is not much help; as everyone pointed out their pre-set is in)
Really hope they'll reconsider this!!
agree leader should have permission to opt out non players
or
automatic opt opt if no task done
Hi Nick,
sorry for my bad english, but..
1. You have entered the Derby League because you realize that many people are passionate to derbies;
2. You have entered the trophies because you realize that many people are competitive and wants to show its results;
3. Have you entered can be in or out of the derby because you realize that in a neighborhood not everyone can always play or are able.
At this point, you should also realize that very often, usually on a Monday when the derby ends, many players try new neighborhoods because they want something different.
So it happens that in neighborhoods with many trophies arrive several requests for input from various players, but leaders can not know how they play and, if the choice to participate in the derby next remains only for the players and not the leaders, often it happens that we are in derby started with bad players.
So do the problems, fights, expulsions, and more.
You have to allow the leaders to decide who takes part in the derby or not.
One solution could be that the player, as it is now, select the option in / out derby from advanced settings, which appear on the list players their status and that, however, it is for the Leader and Co-Leaders accept or reject the their request for participation.
With a solution of this type you would avoid many neighborhoods have new derby marred by bad players and you may yet revive the union of a neighborhood, as well as to give the leader the right right to choose their own winning team.
Leaders should be allowed to modify members derby status. We have two members who have temporarily lost access and are unable to opt out of the derby. This hurts the whole team. The derby is a lot of work to participate when there is no chance of placing anywhere close to the top three even when the rest of us use diamonds to play the extra game. Not being able to opt out those who can't play makes it not fun for everyone else and not worth the effort.
:thumbsdown: No thanks to leaders opting me in or out or accepting my application to play the Derby. No way. I'd rather be kicked out than managed.
(Although I have an excellent leader whom I would trust with such a button, it is not about (and should not be about) trust and the luck to have a sensible leader --it is about me playing my game, not my leader and hood deciding my game for me. Just kick me out if I can't play.)
(Agree that default should be OUT)
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by pitchfork
When you play HD normally, obviously your game "it is about me playing my game, not my leader", but when you play a derby, is the group that wins or loses and your bad game could lose the whole group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KawaM
No, this is not relevant. Yes, playing as a team is working together and my game could affect yours, but that is voluntary -- I choose to play, I choose to be in a hood, I choose to agree with rules of hood, etc etc. My choice. Not the leader's choice. If the hood or leader doesn't want me messing up their game they have a KICK button. Use it. I would rather go it alone than have to beg my hood to let me join in. And I would not be interested in controlling anyone else's choice. If they didn't want to play my rules and I was the leader, I'd rather kick them out than spend each week evaluating whether to let them play the Derby or not.
It amazes me all the threads that I read about leaders wanting to have more power over the farms in their NH.
I thought the derby was supposed to be a fun game-inside the- game add. Not a venue for power crazed overlords to control and have button pressing ability over each person in their neighborhood!
If you have someone who isn't participating, and not opting out - reach out to them. They're human being after all (I hope); and if you can't and it's impacting your ability to get 1st place in the derby (perish the thought) - boot them.
Shocked by the amount of involvement and manipulating some leaders want to have in how the derby is run. It is just a game after all... or did I miss something?
I'm weighing in with the logical position of have the default status be Opted Out/Not in Derby.
We have lost one member because he'd been idle the week before, we had not contact with him, kicked him so's not to disadvantage us at derby the next week... but he never logged into the game with GC or Fb so that we could invite him back.
Worse, we've had members who intend to do derby, but then suddenly life happens in the real world, and then don't have time to go opt out.... so they end up being dead weight to carry for that race. Had this happen to two members this week, grrrr. 7th freaking place because of it :mad:
If the default were to be opted out of derby, then only those active enough to seriously want to participate in derby would be In Derby for the race. Someone forgets to opt it, bummer... but no where near as much of a bummer as pulling the whole freaking hood down with them because they forgot or didn't have time to opt out.
That's just a bad idea. Not gonna happen anyways, so why keep going on about it. :smirk:
The only logical solution is to have the default status be Not in Derby, and players have to opt in to derby each week.
Agree with this 100%. Not sure how hard it can be to make the status opt out if someone doesn't complete a task in the prior derby. They can then opt in when they get back to the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by pitchfork
Because we are not able to do this we have to kick them out and let them rejoin once derby starts. It is a hassle that could be avoided.
Similar thread: Automatic Opt Out of DerbyQuote:
Originally Posted by beefcake2015
It would cause more grief to be kicked out of a neighbourhood than to be excluded from derby. Criteria could be set that must be met for leaders to opt someone out such as minimum requirements not being met in number of derby points and\or number of tasks per derby.
Currently we have a forced derbylessness policy which requires us to kick someone out and allow them to rejoin after derby begins. Miscommunication and grief can occur this way.
Derbies have changed the way neighbourhoods function. Neighbourhoods that were like families with members that had been together for a long time have broken apart due to the competition. Some lower level players have a hard time completing required tasks. If leaders could opt them out it would enable them to still be part of a neighbourhood without the grief of being kicked out.
Leaders can kick people out of neighbourhoods so why shouldn't they be able to opt members out of derbies. Other members complain when someone is not doing their share of tasks. As a leader I would rather opt someone out of a derby than kick them out of the neighborhood.
A good way is to not put no one in derby less that player pick the first task let it put them in then? Thats my suggestion that way people that ant active are just dont wont to help wont be in derby.
I think this is a great idea. It would be good if a message could be sent to them letting them know they have been opted out of derby. Please opt in when you are ready to join the next derby.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMan
I think leaders should be able to opt players out, but still let the player opt back in (if they are actually playing, or when they come back) under their own settings menu.
Agree, posted similar thread
im tired of players only doing one task then sitting on a task that goes till end of Derby and not completing
would love to opt these out so they need to repot in, therefore missing at least 1 Derby.
they may get the message after being opted out a few times
We work very hard in my nh to communicate well. I am the leader. When I have fb communication for a non-playing hood member, I use it. We have chat. I use that. I also ask other nh members to explain the derby setting to players who are in a different part of the world and who play at different times than I do.
But what if the player can't get the message, or if their primary language isn't English (our hood language setting)?
Upshot of of all this is that we have several players still opted into the derby who have never taken a derby task. Youth, illness, device malfunction, living in a war zone (in real life) all impact a player's ability to use the opt out setting. I don't want to kick these people out of our neighborhood. But that is the power the game gives me. I believe that is a more destructive power.
if I were to opt a player out of the derby, let's say, a player who has never taken a derby task, and who I have chatted with several times to explain how to opt out, yes, it could make the player mad. He or she could then voluntarily leave our nh. I would prefer that, as for me, right now it is not clear if several of our members understand what I am asking. If I opted them out they would see it clearly. If they became angry with me, then I would understand the situation, and know that removing them from the NH might be a legitimate choice. It does not feel legitimate now.
For us, kicking someone out of the NH is a big deal. Opting a non-derby participant out would give us all more information, information I currently can't get.
Blackbrit, a point very well made. I completely agree with all you write but believe the problem arises from those Neighbourhoods who have power crazy leaders. Unfortunately some people take the competition element of the GAME way too seriously so I understand why supercell may be hesitant to give that power. The reality is that people can choose the type of Neighbourhood they wish to belong to, yes it may take some searching, but eventually most people can find a place to settle. If the power is abused by some then, in time, they will only be left with players who are happy to remain in that environment. I am a leader too and, like yourself, would prefer to have the option to change a players status for all the right reasons and stop other team members becoming frustrated.
After every new derby all opt in/out setting should be set to opt out.. if really someone is willing to play he can opt in. We dont want to miss our wonderful members supercell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbrit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryHD
BB. Many of us are going hoarse saying exactly the same thing. We have finally, pretty much, got our NH sorted, but it's been a hassle and I feel for others with even bigger issues. It's affecting lots and lots of NHs with children, ill people, language barriers etc. I really, really, can't work out why SC will not change it. It's FAR worse to have yo kick someone out if the NH than it is to stop they playing the Derby, do their 'control' excuse holds no water.
Terry, but Leaders already have the greater control of being able to kick people out, no NH AND no Derby. So just 'no Derby for one week' is a far better option and gives everyone the chsnce for a resolution, simply kicking them out does not.
We have had a major problem in my NHood with 8 farms not playing the Derby. We were happy to wait for them to return until the Derby came along. With the matching we were never competetive and many members of our NH stopped playing the Derby. I was waiting, hoping opting out would come but in the end I had no option to evict them.
The new Derby leagues should be better as long as non participating farms opt out. The problem being if they do not play they will not know about opting out and our NHood is penalised again.
I have have no way of contacting them. Please change the rules to overcome this problem and make Hayday fair again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick[Supercell]
Nick,
Your reasoning that some people are sleeping is irrelevant considering there is a 24 hour window between derbies. Not to mention what is the worst that can happen? Someone may be out of the derby for a week? Without changing it, the derby isn't fair and many neighbourhoods are not being able to excel to the best of their abilities. Not all of us want to kick people out who may return to the game.
Default needs to be opt out or leaders and co-leaders need to have the ability to change ones status.
I totally agree, we have players that won't help and wont opt out but do want to reap the benefits, which isn't fair on our hard working players! Why not give leaders an option to opt these players out? Isn't that why we are leaders?! So we can improve our hoods!Quote:
Originally Posted by Patches
Absolute important change we need ASAP - will stop bigger problems from starting and team break ups!
I completely agree with this! Default should be their responsibility to OPT IN. It makes sense that supercell doesn't want to give too much power, but if leaders can opt out players, then they can merely opt back in when they're active.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patches
Can we also make the opt in/opt out button more obvious?
Ok, I don't even get why there's a big debate on this, NH leaders can kick, promote/demote members already (thus selecting who can or can't manage tasks in the derby). Why is it such a big deal to allow leaders to opt in/out members for the next derby.
At least by opting a member out, you could have the chance to explain to that member why he/she has been excluded from the derby, right now the only way is to kick them out and they will probably have no clues on why they have been kicked, so might be offended.
May be another way would be that only elders and above could participate ?
Or introducing a new rank below member like "prospect" so that members can participate but still cant manage tasks on the board wich requires you to be an elder.
Clearly something needs to be done, because comming in the last 3 and beeing demoted in derby leagues because 3 new players joined and did'nt opt out is pretty disapointing. Especially when you worked hard weeks before to get those additional tasks and horseshoe rewards.
Best regards,
Abjab
Emergencies occur, life happens and us addicts go on playing. Leaders need to access to opt members out.
As a leader I should kick them out, when I could just opt them out? Doesn't make sense. :mad: This Derby has already divided the HD players from the hardcore derby players and we want more control of the game.
Yes. If my derby play or town or boat or roadside shop activities (or lack thereof) don't fit with the neighbourhood, kick me out. My game settings are my own and I am not ok with someone else changing them. Control of my farm should rest with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverdragonfly
I agree completely, the default setting should be opt-out. However, a leader should be able to change the setting, in the case of someone who has forgotten to change their setting (after becoming inactive) or is unable to log in. We can always kick someone out of the neighborhood, but that sends a negative message to the person, when all we want them to do is sit out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patches
I will not play the derby until this feature is included. Iam sick of losing and kicking people out!!
"Ah, the laid-back country life, full of fresh produce and furry animals. But just like most small towns, the best part of life here has got to be the friendly neighbors. Hear the team talk about how community isn’t just part of the game, it’s also at the heart of the design process."
So if the best part are the friendly neighbours, and the community is part of the design process - why is it that Supercell is insisting that we kick out our friendly neighbours and family instead of being able to opt them out! I am assuming that they are more for the ultra-competitive NHs and not for the NHs who have community and friendship as per their SuperCell's own description of Hay Day above.
I am a co-leader and we have about 12 inactive members currently. These people are family, friends and strangers who have become friends. Chances are some of them will come back in a few months and some of them never will, but in our community we want to give them the chance and not kick them to the kerb!
Nick, your argument that leaders shouldn't have so much power (Really!!) as it would cause contention is ridiculous. Supercell is basically saying that it is better to expel someone from the NH than Opt them Out??? Illogical and completely contradictory to the above description. If the leader is that bad then the members will leave and form another NH with a better leader - we did. Your other argument for the poor people who happen to sleep in when the derby starts is also illogical - you are referring to active players who are not the problem, the major problem is with inactive players who are by default Opted In - SuperCell needs to take this situation in account and either give leaders the access to Opt players out or have a regular update that automatically opts players out if they are inactive longer than 30 days for example.
Currently the situation is that NHs who have a friendly community are disadvantaged and as a family friendly game I would have thought that would have been taken into account.
PS: Please post your email address so that all those kids who want to play with their Moms, Dads, Cousins etc can complain directly to you when they get kicked out of their NHs because they went playing something else for a month and didn't take part in a few derbies!
This thing should be added to hay day
Why do not the concerned moms, dads, and cousins help these poor children by telling them how to opt out - or opting the out? Presumably the parents live in the same place as the kids. If i had half the concern you are talking about that is what i would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by AethyrDragon
If they were kicked, they can also be sent an invitation to rejoin when they do play again. If they are not in a hood while not playing it makes no difference. Also a good lesson to children about responsibility.
I do not disagree with your request but the poor attempt to pretend it is somehow cruel to children.
We also have inactive hoodies we are not concerned about. Made it to expert level.
It was actually to emphasize how contradictory their "friendly community game" is to the decision that you have to kick out inactive members and are not allowed to Opt them Out :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by haydayforum
Hey day plz add this
Quote:
Originally Posted by powdermonkey
the leaders should be able to opt a player in or out.
exactly what i said earlier on another post and found his thread already.. yes i totally agree leaders should be able to opt out a person.. we also wouldnt want to kick friends completely out of our neighborhood but leaders been able to opt out players should be an option.. its fair enough for us that are wasting diamonds and doing all derby tasks.. please pleaseeeeeee hayday reconsider this issue it would help us alot!!..
Agreed:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by powdermonkey
100% agree with you