 And I think like this is true of discussions. It's probably true of annotations as well is setting requirements for it. It feels false because that's not what happens in the real world. If you were to pick up a book that has been annotated by someone else, you're not gonna like only do the thing, two things. You're gonna do all of the things that you like and appreciate. So I would say start with the instructions. Start with, you know, I encourage you. I invite you. I, yeah, like basically it's a very encouraging. It's a very open practice. It shouldn't be sort of transactional. It shouldn't be like, you know, do these two things and you get a grade. It's more of like the quality and engaging in the process. So you mentioned like learner just, or I'm sorry, student to student interaction. I actually see this also as like a learner to content which is rare to get in a lot of different tools. So yeah, I would start with just being positive about the instructions, framing it in a certain way. And then when you mentioned modeling, I try to be as positive as possible and as excited about contributions as I can. And if it's possible, maybe it's not totally authentic or realistic to do, but I try to hit as many people as possible to basically catch them doing something good, catch them doing the thing that I would love to see and that hopefully helps spur the discussion more.