• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de foutboodschap die je op je scherm ziet, indien van toepassing.

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.

• Leg uit wat je wilde doen, wat je deed en wat er gebeurde

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermkopie van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je een hosting-service voor afbeeldingen naar keuze gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld snipboard.io) om deze te uploaden en de link hier te kopiëren/plakken. Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?

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.

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.

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.

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Wat stond op het scherm toen je geblokkeerd was (Leeg scherm? Een deel van de spelinterface? Foutboodschap?)

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.

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Met welk onderdeel van de regels is geen rekening gehouden bij de BGA-versie?

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.

• Is de inbreuk op de spelregels zichtbaar in de spelherhaling? Indien ja, bij welk zetnummer?

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Welke spelactie wilde je uitvoeren?

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.

• Wat probeerde je te doen om deze spelactie te laten optreden?

• Wat gebeurde er toen je dit probeerde te doen (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• In welke fase van het spel deed het probleem zich voor (wat was de huidige spelinstructie)?

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.

• Wat gebeurde toen je deze spelactie probeerde (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Beschrijf alsjeblieft het probleem met de beeldweergave. Als je een schermkopie van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je een hosting-service voor afbeeldingen naar keuze gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld snipboard.io) om deze te uploaden en de link hier te kopiëren/plakken.

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.

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermkopie van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je een hosting-service voor afbeeldingen naar keuze gebruiken (bijvoorbeeld snipboard.io) om deze te uploaden en de link hier te kopiëren/plakken. Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?

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.

• Welke browser gebruik je?

• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.

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.

• Welke browser gebruik je?