Interpreting images

When an image is posted at the start of a round, you can interpret that image by commenting on that image at any point during that round, starting the comment with 'INTERPRET:'.
Make an interpretation about anything in the picture that interests you. Good general questions to try and answer include "what is happening here?"; "who/what/where is this?"; "how did they get here?"; "where are they going?".
Bear in mind that each image forms part of a timeline, with each new scene occuring after the previous one posted, unless a special effect has been used which changes that.

Interpretations must be factual statements which relate directly to the scene depicted or something in it.
You can make interpretations about the run-up to the scene or the aftermath of it, where those things bear directly on the scene. For example, you could say of a bruised and bloodied figure in the image "he has just come from a battle" but not "he has a wife who he loves dearly" (unless, say, his wife were responsible for the bruises!).


You may not interpret an image that you posted. You are not allowed to provide the answer to a question posed in the post you are commenting on.
You are, of course, allowed to provide answers later on, provided they are relevant to the later image you are responding to.

You are not required to interpret images literally.
Feel free to use a bit of artistic licence in interpreting images, else you may find yourself severely restricted in the interpretations you can come up with.
For instance, you can interpret two people in different images as being the same person, even if they don't look exactly alike. Same applies to objects - e.g. if there were two images both containing a pocketwatch, you can interpret them as the same pocketwatch even if one is silver and the other is gold. Otherwise it is very hard to build up a storyline!

When you post an interpretation, keep to the simplest possible statements.
Keeping your statements simple enables other participants to flexibly support them.
For example: If you say "the figure in the picture is bruised and bloodied because he was attacked by a heavily armed mob of religious fanatics, who he barely managed to fight off" then nobody can support the idea of him being attacked by a mob without also agreeing that the mob was made up of religious fanatics. Instead, comment with separate interpretations "he was attacked by religious fanatics"; "his assailants were heavily armed"; "he fought off his assailants, but just barely".

Don't go crazy posting dozens of interpretations! Give other people a chance to participate. Maybe something they post will give you ideas of your own.