Minor Concern

[Jacob Kellogg]

I've avoided mentioning something I saw in the judge comments on my item, mostly because I made it and I don't want to seem ungrateful or rude or nitpicky or anything. I've waffled back and forth on posting this, but after some thought, I believe this is worth mentioning, if only as a little FYI/heads-up. And besides, it couldn't hurt to just say something, right? So please understand that I post this humbly and with full respect to our esteemed judges.

So anyway, the issue is that it seems my item was mis-read. My cloak of energy reversal description states:

Cloak of Energy Reversal wrote:

A cloak of energy reversal switches the effects of positive and negative energy on the wearer; whichever energy type would otherwise harm her will heal her instead, and vice versa

The first judge comment then states:

Neil Spicer wrote:

Since it doesn't protect from channeled energy meant to harm as part of a special attack, you couldn't don this thing thinking you'd be able to withstand a bunch of nega-bombs from an opposing cleric.

But the item does do that, and that is one of the intended uses (as quoted above). For clearer contrast:

Cloak of Energy Reversal wrote:

whichever energy type would otherwise harm her will heal her instead

Neil Spicer wrote:

it doesn't protect from channeled energy meant to harm

As substantial portion of the discussion on my item centered around who would want it, and some of those comments referenced Neil's summary.

What if that mis-reading of my item had carried more impact and lost me my slot? Even worse, what if someone else's item was also misread and they should have had my spot?

Again, please understand that I know you all had to read a lot of entries and you know what you're doing and I'm not trying to be petty or raise a big stink or anything. I just want to bring this to your attention, lest it happen again* but with greater impact.

Thanks for your time, and for picking me to be in the Top 32. :)

*:

Alternatively, if you believe this was not a mis-reading in the first place due to something in my item description that I'm overlooking, please let me know. Thanks!

[Neil Spicer]

Quite honestly, Jacob, the description of your item gave us all headaches. I took my best shot at trying to interpret what you intended. Sean himself came around and admitted it gave him pause, too. I think your takeaway from that should be to make sure you explain complicated mechanics and information as simply and clearly as you can. I believe your item came in as a "golden ticket." So, you've got a lot to prove going forward. Your concern that a misinterpretation of your item got you in when it might have otherwise been rejected is admirable. We saw enough in your item to give you a shot. Make the most of it with your organization and let the chips fall where they may.

But that's just my two cents,
--Neil

[Jacob Kellogg]

Thanks for replying, Neil. :)

Yes, my biggest takeaway was that I needed to work on clarity. Given that I made my entry way too hastily due to excitement from discovering the contest for the first time (I think my total time spent was <24hrs from discovery to submission), I can't really complain, and I made sure to focus on clarity in my Round 2 submission. (Though, sadly, that too was somewhat hastily done because I didn't expect to make it through Round 1 in the first place - though ironically for a reason that never showed up in anyone's comments.)

Anyway, enough rambling from me. Thanks for reading through my concern and responding as kindly as you did. :)