• もしあれば、画面に表示されたエラーメッセージをコピー&ペーストしてください

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.

• 何をしたいか、何をしたか、何が起きたかを説明してください

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• あなたの言語の代わりに、表示されている英語の文章をコピー&ペーストしてください。 もしこのバグのスクリーンショットがあれば(素晴らしい!)、Imgur.com等を使ってアップロードし、リンクをコピー&ペーストしてください。

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.

• このテキストは翻訳ページで翻訳可能になっていますか?もしそうならば、24時間以上前に翻訳されていますか?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• 何を意味するのか、簡単に理解できるようにあなたの提案を正確かつ簡潔に説明してください。

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.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• ブロックされたときの表示は何でしたか(空のスクリーン?一部のみのゲームインターフェイス?エラーメッセージ?)

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.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• BGAで正しく実装されていないルールはどの部分ですか?

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.

• ルールの間違いはゲームのリプレイで確認できますか?そうであれば、行動番号は何番ですか?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• やりたかったゲームアクションは何ですか?

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.

• このゲームアクションを引き起こす為に何を試みましたか?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• これを行おうとしたときに何が起こりましたか?(エラーメッセージ、ステータスバーメッセージ、他)

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• どの段階でこの問題が起こりましたか?(画面の指示はどうなっていましたか)

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.

• ゲームアクションを行おうとしたとき、何が起こりましたか?(エラーメッセージ、ステータスバーメッセージ、他)

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• 表示の問題を説明してください もしこのバグのスクリーンショットがあれば(素晴らしい!)、Imgur.com等を使ってアップロードし、リンクをコピー&ペーストしてください。

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.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• あなたの言語の代わりに、表示されている英語の文章をコピー&ペーストしてください。 もしこのバグのスクリーンショットがあれば(素晴らしい!)、Imgur.com等を使ってアップロードし、リンクをコピー&ペーストしてください。

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.

• このテキストは翻訳ページで翻訳可能になっていますか?もしそうならば、24時間以上前に翻訳されていますか?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?

• 何を意味するのか、簡単に理解できるようにあなたの提案を正確かつ簡潔に説明してください。

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.

• あなたのブラウザは何ですか?