Sirve          

EN CONCLUSIÓN ... MI IMAGEN SIRVE O NO SIRVE ??
http://www.subeimagenes.com/img/envidia-master-final-copia-208555.png

@MrBeast, go to the challenge thread and check out the pieces begun by Mrmo Tarius and iMoose for the answer to your question.  Adding eyes and a mouth and giving them expressions can do wonders.  Jim Henson knew that.

@Jeremy, I give up.

 Oh boy...xD
Alright, alright, sorry, didn't know.

Then I guess it's your decision.

Please try to make this kind of restrictions more clear on the description next time, since confusion seems to be an usual thing among these challenges u.u

I did.                   

its a challenge, you decide to enter or not. Challenges are supposed to be challenging

Please tell me that's sarcasm, Beast...

Jeremy, who created this challenge? What was HIS/HER idea?

Also...the distinction between someone/something was made because someone would mean an individual, while something might depict a situation/state/possession-etc. (Wouldn't that make more sense?)

I don't think ANYONE is looking for "exploiting loopholes" when thinking "somebody" isn't restricted to human beings. What would be the point? Why are you being restrictive on this matter? :s

How can something that is not a person show that it is jelous eh?

"The trick is to remember that exploiting loopholes doesn't make you as clever as you think it does".

You might want to look closer at that sample sentence for • a character in a play or story
I clarified within 24 hours of the challenge start what I, and every single dictionary definition I can find, meant by somebody.

Again, why would there be any distinction between "someone/something" if any any animal, mineral or tree fits inside the *somebody* umbrella? Use common sense.

Jeremy, your strict interpretation of "person" is what I was referring to when I mentioned the "magnifying glass."  I would hardly expect people to find definitions within definitions for every challenge introduced ever.  Using your attitude, I could just as rightly take that same magnifying glass, quote the following from the definition of "person":

• a character in a play or story

...and then point my finger at you and say, "HA!  SEE?  It doesn't HAVE to be a human, it can be any character in a story." <sticks tongue out, blows raspberries>

If you had come out and said, "Sorry everyone, I MEANT for the challenge to only depict human beings..." then we wouldn't be having this argument.  But instead you've turned it into a semantic argument.

I see your point.  I don't think you see our point.

 So this is what I see here:

In favor of non-humans: 1.) It's quite common in art for non-human characters to be depicted in the same way as human characters; 2.) The main premises of the challenge are jealousy and the the color green, and the human aspect doesn't seem as essential to the challenge; 3.) A few members have already put work into entries that don't include humans, before this distinction was made clear to them; 4.) Synonyms and philosophical definitions of "somebody" include non-human beings.

In favor of humans only: 1.) The dictionary definition of "somebody" is "a person", and the dictionary definition of "person" is "human".

I really don't see the benefit or the added challenge to limiting entries to humans only. Seems to me that allowing other ideas would make a much nicer variety in the challenge entries at the end of the week. I don't mean to be all contradictory here Jeremy, but I just don't think it's so ridiculous to interpret the challenge to include non-human subjects.

Just bein devil's advocate here, but the 4th definition for "person" at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person) states:

4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

Granted, the other 4 mention human being, although the 5th allows for types of androids and other entities via some views of Theseus's Paradox.

Look up "person"

If you don't know why a cyborg would be ok when a robot wouldn't, I don't know what to tell you.

Let me get this right, because I missed it the first time:

Ghosts, Zombies, & Cyborgs = OK

Vampires & Androids = NOT OK

And I'm being ridiculous?

-

Here's the definition in the dictionary I use:

somebody |ˈsəmˌbädē|pronoun1 some person; someone.

...I don't see the word "human" in there, sorry.

Really not sure why you decided to put the magnifying glass on the word in the first place.  I would think "jealousy" is the more important concept in the challenge, the main thing people should consider when creating their piece (and when voting) and the one that YOU as a moderator should care more about.  There are thousands of entries on this website depicting non-human characters doing all manner of things.  You're saying that the meaning of "somebody" should be obvious, but clearly it isn't.  At least two pretty talented members of our community instantly began pieces on the WIP challenge board that defy your interpretation of the word, and from what I can tell a bunch more - including myself - agree with them.

Well I found this on the wikipedia page for "person" : "Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, sovereign states, estates in probate, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life"

I don't mean to embitter the arguing, but I think that the human restriction doesn't add anything to the challenge. 

What? Don't be ridiculous. I can't find a dictionary definition for somebody/one that deviates from "an [unspecified] human"

I'm confused.

If the mods are not qualified to determine, philisophically, what a somebody is, then why make the restriction?

In my opinion, "Occam's Razor" would sooner support iMoose's interpretation than Jeremy's.  To me, "somebody" means a CHARACTER - like a duck or a person or a slime or an alien.  Point is we see that they are jealous (whoever/whatever they may *be*).

 Can we really not describe, say, WALL-E as a somebody?

At its most base definition, somebody is an (unspecified) person. A person is "A human being regarded as an individual".

Human.

Occam's Razor really should be applied to PJ challenge descriptions. I don't think any of the mods are qualified for the deep philosophical argument of what is a somebody? (cure maybe). That's not to say that you can't be creative, I'm fairly sure there's still a near-infinite number of scenarios to choose from. It should have been clear just for the fact that the second half of the challenge writeup makes the distinction between humans and everything else!

On human-ish things, I'd say (human) ghosts, (human) zombies and cyborgs which are at least 50% human would qualify; whereas vampires, furries or humanoid androids would not.

Finally, the purpose of weekly challenges is to be a springboard of ideas. I'd encourage people to finish things which don't necessarily fit the challenge rules but are still bitching pieces of art. Y'all shouldn't be entering just for the promise of a shiny green ribbon at the end anyway >:I

p.s. @Mrmo: ME3 sux

If I told someone to draw someone doing something, I would find it totally within those directions if they decided to draw, say, Daffy Duck going for a walk. Especially since pixel art is a media commonly used to illustrate non-human characters, and since a restriction to human characters only wasn't specified in the challenge rules, I think it's totally fair for us to use non-human characters. Although I'm arguing this somewhat selfishly, since I've already spent a few hours on my jelly blobs (and what a perfect pun! The jelly blob is jelly!), I think the restriction to humans only is unnecessary 

 In all actuality, Jeremy, you probably should have mentioned this within the challenge. You know how we PAs tend to get a little debative on these topics (i.e. Grain on this challenge, and Philipejugnet on the unexpected events challenge). Some people won't look here for this particular specification (I didn't even notice this page existed until Mrmo said something in the forum), and then they'll have wasted their time on a piece they can't use in the challenge (i.e. Mrmo and Imoose). Not much you can do now, but for future reference, it would be nice that no ambiguous words are used as specfications of the challenges.

 

 

le seul intérêt que je peut trouver à un challenge ici c'est la motivation qu'il suscite en moi, si mon art est disqualifier(même sans raison) ça ne me fera aucun mal , du moment que mon estime n'est pas troubler , il n'y a pas de mal à être dans l'erreur d'avoir suivi sont cœur, même si cela est la plus grand cause de douleur

 I actually wanted to make a similar argument (provided that I've translated that one properly, hehe), but I think we need more input from the people who are supervising the rules. (For example, I have just finished playing Mass Effect 3, and it went to great lenghts to explain how any intelligent, self-conscious entity can be considered 'somebody', even the alien, robotic AI-driven Geth) 

la personne est définit par le corps l'esprit et l'âme , au delà de cette conception , ont peut aussi détailler l'individu par le pouvoir-la perception-le sex, par état formel mais aussi par état existentiel par la conscience(le choix), pour faire simple un être vivant de degré robotique supérieur à la première itération fractal de l'équilibre vérifie toujours fondamentalement ces paramètres, alors un animal ou même une plante peut être considérer comme un individu , bien sur pour la connaissance de la conscience il sera forcement une personnification créé par notre esprit , alors une méduse dessiner par Mrmo Tarius sous forme personnifier me parait être "quelqu'un" sans amener à des notions comme la plus petit entier divisible de l'être pour définir l'individu, le challenge ne précise pas qu'il s'agit de forme corporel humaine , mais seulement de quelqu'un !!! même si la jalousie est un sentiment potentiellement humain , et que néanmoins elle serais observer cher bon nombre d'animaux, probablement sous forme précurseur.

Sooo... humans only, eh?

Yes.

If anyone's unsure still, I made this hilarious writeup:

"Depict somebody being jealous of someone/something"

This is going to be a tough one xD

 Yeah, I interpreted it to mean "somebody", as in a human?

I am asking this for Dorong.

I actually translated what was going on his last submission, and he acknowledged what was wrong.

For now, he is thinking of submitting art for this weeks challenge too, but he wonders if 

"Depict somebody being jealous of someone/something."

requires 'the jealous one' to be human since it said "depict somebody"

Ah, I've thought of and discarded a ton of ideas already because I know my execution would be crap.  I may resort to animals and inanimate object with cute faces instead.  *shrugs*

@Chibiwing  which is..?

---

I'm gonna do something about artistic envy on this page :D

Did snader make this challenge...

 That's why you make use of jellyfish form, which is squishy and impossible to fail at! :D

Why does every idea I ever think of include the human form which I fail at?

 Dibs on the jealous jellyfish :P