• Lūdzu nokopē/ielīmē kļūdas ziņu, ko redzi ekrānā, ja tāda ir.

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.

• Lūdzu paskaidro, ko Tu vēlējies darīt, ko Tu izdarīji un kas notika

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.

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.

• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kas tika attēlots ekrānā, kad Tu tiki bloķēts (tukšs ekrāns? Daļa no spēles interfeisa? Ziņa par kļūdu?)?

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kura noteikumu daļa netika ņemta vērā BGA versijā?

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.

• Vai noteikumu pārkāpums ir redzams spēles atkārtojumā? Ja jā, tad kurā gājienā?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kādu spēles darbību Tu vēlējies veikt?

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.

• Ko tu dari, lai panāktu šo spēles darbību?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kas notika, kad veicāt šo darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kurā spēles solī problēma parādījās (kas bija tā brīža spēles instrukcija)?

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.

• Kas notika, kad mēģinājāt veikt spēles darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu aprakstiet radušos problēmu. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.

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.

• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?