It makes a lot of sense and I'm likely to sign a forced arbitration clause if I think it will be a fair process. People respond to incentives and there are law

It makes a lot of sense and I'm likely to sign a forced arbitration clause if I think it will be a fair process. People respond to incentives and there are lawyers specialized in trying to grab huge payoffs from companies. They are not allowed in arbitration. This is a sensitive issue and the last time I posted, some innocent bystander got banned. You can review my post history, which is serious. Yes, people respond to incentives, and yes, massive payoffs by companies when a seedy lawyer is one of these incetives is one of these. Why people here don't understand this is beyond me. People understand that giving equity in a company produces great labor from early employees. It should be equally obvious that allowing massive, inflated, and ungrounded lawsuits encourages the opposite result. If done well, there is nothing wrong with forced arbitration. I can only repeat: I myself will sign a forced arbitration clause, if I expect it to be vaguely fair, even if it deprives me of the chance to file a huge golddigger lawsuit. I prefer to play on the winning team, not sue them. Forced arbitration, done well, helps this. Why would I sign if it's so evil?