• Kui näed ekraanil veateadet, kopeeri see siia.

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• Kirjelda, mida sa soovisid teha, mida sa tegid ja mis juhtus

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• Kas see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Mis oli ekraanil, kui sind blokeeriti? (Tühi ekraan? Osa mänguliidesest? Veateade?)

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Millist osa BGA kohandamisest ei järgitud

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• Kas reeglite rikkumist on mängu taasesitusel näha? Kui jah, siis mitmendal käigul?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Milline oli mängu tegevus, mida tahtsid sooritada?

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• Mida püüdsid teha, et seda mängu tegevust käivitada?

• Mis juhtus, kui seda proovisite (veateade, mängu olekuriba teade, ...)?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Millises mängu etapis esines probleem (Mis oli selle mänguetapi instruktsioon)?

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• Mis juhtus, kui proovisite sooritada seda mängu käiku (veateade, mängu olekuriba sõnum, ...)?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Kirjelda kuvamise probleemi. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• Kas see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.

When submitting a clue, I think it would be helpful to have the option to also submit a short explanation. This would be visible only to the other clue givers and not the active player, until after the active player has submitted their guess.

The main reason for this is I regularly see cases where clues are invalidated when they should not be, because the person doing the validation did not realize it was a valid clue. Here are two examples that happened in the last few days:

1) "Rohirrim" was invalidated. This is a proper name in Lord of the Rings. I think it was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues did not realize this, so they either thought it was a made up word or maybe the answer in a foreign language.

2) "Baaa" was invalidated because the person reviewing the clues thought it was a made up word. It is true that it is not a word, but "baa" is a word (for the sound a sheep makes), and the rules explicitly give example of elongating words for onomatopoeia effect ("Riiiiinnnnng" is the example in the rulebook)

In both of these cases, if the clue giver had been able to submit a brief explanation, it could have helped the reviewer realize the clue was actually valid.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?