• Kopioi/liitä virheilmoitus näytöltäsi, jos sait sellaisen.

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.

• Selitä mitä halusit tehdä, mitä teit ja mitä tapahtui

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.

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.

• Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Mitä näytöllä näkyi kun olit estettynä (Tyhjä ruutu? Osa pelin käyttöliittymästä? Virheilmoitus?)

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Mitä osaa säännöistä BGA:n sovellus ei noudattanut

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.

• Onko sääntörikkomus nähtävillä pelin toistossa? Jos kyllä, mikä on siirron numero?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Minkä pelin toiminnon halusit suorittaa?

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.

• Mitä yritit tehdä tämän pelitoiminnon käynnistymiseksi?

• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Missä vaiheessa peliä ongelma ilmeni (mikä oli silloinen pelin ohje)?

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.

• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän pelin toiminnon (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Kuvaile näyttöongelmaa. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.

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.

• Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?

• Mikä on selaimesi?

• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.

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.

• Mikä on selaimesi?