• 如果可以的話，請轉貼螢幕顯示的錯誤訊息。

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.

• 請說明你當時想做什麼，你做了什麼，然後發生了什麼事

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。

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.

• 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎？若為真，其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時？

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。

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.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 當你不能動作時，螢幕上顯示什麼？（螢幕全黑？部份遊戲介面？錯誤訊息？）

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.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 遊戲規則的哪部分在 BGA 版本有所錯漏？

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.

• 這項違反規則之處可否在遊戲重播中看到？若可以是在哪步？（重播時左上角資訊）

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 你當時想採取哪個遊戲行動？

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.

• 你想觸發這個遊戲行動時做了什麼？

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 當你試著這麼做時發生了什麼（錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...）？

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 問題發生在遊戲的哪一步？（目前遊戲指示是什麼）

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.

• 當你試著進行遊戲動作時發生了什麼（錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...）？

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 請描述顯示問題。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。

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.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。

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.

• 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎？若為真，其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時？

I proposed the move at 234 and again at 314.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？

• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。

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.

• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？