• אנא העתק/הדבק את הודעת השגיאה המופיעה במסך, אם יש כזו.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• בבקשה הסבר מה רצית לעשות,מה עשית ומה קרה

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• בבקשה העתק והדבק את הטקסט המוצג באנגלית במקום בשפה שלך. אם יש לך צילום מסך (מומלץ) אתה יכול להשתמש ב Imgur.com כדי להעלות אותו להדביק קישור לכאן.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• האם טקסט זה זמין במערכת התרגום? אם כן, האם היא תורגמה במשך יותר מ -24 שעות?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• אנא הסבר את ההצעה שלך במדויק ותמצית כדי שיהיה קל ככל האפשר להבין למה אתה מתכוון.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• מה הוצג על המסך כאשר נחסמה (מסך ריק? חלק ממשק המשחק? הודעת שגיאה?)

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• איזה חלק של הכללים לא היה מכובד על ידי עיבוד BGA

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• האם אפשר לראות את הפרת החוק בשידור החוזר? אם כן, באיזה מספר מהלך?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• מה היה המהלך במשחק שרצית לבצע?

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• מה ניסית לעשות שגרם לפעולה הזו

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• מה קרה כאשר את/ה מנסה לעשות את זה (הודעת שגיאה, הודעת פס סטטוס משחק, ...)?

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• באיזה שלב במשחק הבעייה קרתה (מה היו ההוראות הנכונות)

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• מה קרה כאשר את/ה מנסה לבצע פעולת משחק (הודעת שגיאה, הודעת פס סטטוס משחק, ...)?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• אנא תאר/י את הנושא המוצג. אם יש לך צילום מסך (מומלץ) אתה יכול להשתמש ב Imgur.com כדי להעלות אותו להדביק קישור לכאן.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• בבקשה העתק והדבק את הטקסט המוצג באנגלית במקום בשפה שלך. אם יש לך צילום מסך (מומלץ) אתה יכול להשתמש ב Imgur.com כדי להעלות אותו להדביק קישור לכאן.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• האם טקסט זה זמין במערכת התרגום? אם כן, האם היא תורגמה במשך יותר מ -24 שעות?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?

• אנא הסבר את ההצעה שלך במדויק ותמצית כדי שיהיה קל ככל האפשר להבין למה אתה מתכוון.

We have a situation in which none of the remaining capullis can be played with 1 double canal left. But since players have to agree on the proposed removal, any one of them can disagree to deliberately prolonging the game even though its obvious no move makes the remaining capulli playable. This forces one of the remaining players to cede an action points to play a canal to forcibly correct the issue and remove the capullis.

The reason for the proposal and agreement is just to test the legitimacy of the proposal. There is to be no tactical or strategic reason for making or rejecting a proposal, but that appears to be what some players are using it for. I would expect a person to give some explanation for which capullis are still foundable if a disagreement is made.

• מה הדפדפן שלך?