• Var vänlig klipp och klistra in felmeddelandet du ser på skärmen, om något.

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.

• Varsågod och förklara vad du ville göra, vad du gjorde och vad som hände

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Var vänlig kopiera/klistra in texten på engelska istället för ditt eget språk. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Är denna text tillgänglig i översättningssystemet? I så fall, var det mer än 24 timmar sedan den översattes?

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vänligen förklara ditt förslag exakt och koncist så att det är så enkelt som möjligt att förstå vad du menar.

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vad visades på skärmen när du blockerades (Blank skärm? Del av spelets användargränssnitt? Felmeddelande?)?

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vilken del av reglerna respekterades inte av BGA-adaptionen?

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.

• Är regelbrottet synligt i återuppspelning? Om ja, vilket nummer är det på draget?

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vilken spelhandling ville du göra?

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.

• Vad försöker du göra för att sätta igång denna spelmekaniken?

• Vad hände när du försökte göra det här (felmeddelande, meddelande i spelstatusrad, ...)?

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• På vilket steg i spelet kom felet (vad var den aktuella instruktionen från spelet)?

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.

• Vad hände när du försökte utföra en spelhandling (felmeddelande, meddelande i spelstatusrad, ...)?

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vänligen beskriv visningsproblemet. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Var vänlig kopiera/klistra in texten på engelska istället för ditt eget språk. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Är denna text tillgänglig i översättningssystemet? I så fall, var det mer än 24 timmar sedan den översattes?

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?

• Vänligen förklara ditt förslag exakt och koncist så att det är så enkelt som möjligt att förstå vad du menar.

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.

• Vad har du för webbläsare?