What I find particularly interesting is that when there is a discrepancy regarding the scoring between two judges, you seem to automatically veer in on that one that scored you lower as being unprofessional. Now, when it came to delivering the 0's, they were from my perspective warranted. Granted, if I were to provide a 1 in each of those parameters, that might bump you up to a 14, so I'm not sure if that really addresses the real issue. As for statements that are in no way an assessment, I don't really know what to tell you. The unit lineup was the ingame Human faction effectively slashed in half, and the way in which mana shield was used ensured that you started off with your units at a lower performance rate to ingame factions. The only way to overcome this is by building up your Faith as quickly as possible, and that's not an easy investment to make. Kam's judging of the entry in question was radically different to my own. I am baffled by the notion of him having played the entry and not only being able to make it function for him, but being able to make it function to the point of assessing that it might be too powerful in some instances. He might just be a better player than me, and I in no way would invalidate his assessment - it's a very different perspective to my own that, when calculated for the results, provides a more balanced middle ground for the final score. I would like to ask, though, what aspects were actually unprofessional? Out of two judges, you observe there is a massive difference in scoring for your entry, yet from what I can see, you automatically accept the results that provide you with a high score. This could be a personal bias from your own perspective, but it should be said that this in no way says anything against what you would do for your own personal project - this is judged from the setting of a Techtree Contest.