So, please know that I am I reading all the critical comments very carefully and taking them seriously. I haven't responded to all of them, partly because I do

So, please know that I am I reading all the critical comments very carefully and taking them seriously. I haven't responded to all of them, partly because I don't have good answers to all the criticisms and I need to sit with them for a few days. I have also gotten a lot of positive feedback and encouragement. I'd say it's 50/50 right now. Maybe 60/40 at best. I've got a lot of thinking to do. I think what it comes down to is this: Do you believe the average actor in academia/science is a good actor? In other words, are they honestly trying hard to collaboratively advance good work and good science and check their own biases? Or do you believe the average actor is a bad actor (OR that the bad incentive structure is so strong that it corrupts even the well intentioned into mediocre actors at best.) If the former is true (average actor is a good actor), then this system could function the way it is supposed to and would be self regulating to a large degree. And there are many things we could build into it that would help that. If the latter is true, then the critics are right and this system will absolutely fail. Catastrophically. I really don't want to believe the average academic actor is a bad actor, so I'm going to forge ahead for now. But I'm also going to be seeking a lot more feedback for sure. I'm going to read every single critical comment, note it, spend time thinking about the ways in which this could go bad that have been detailed here (some of which I was aware of and thinking about, and some of which are novel ideas). And if I see this heading in those directions, and I can't turn it back on track, I will absolutely pull the plug rather than keep pushing a platform doing harm.