Round 1: Author Response to Reviewer 2 We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her thorough review of our manuscript and thoughtful comments.
In Section 3.3 the authors describe how an increase in system size indicated that one of the results presented earlier in the paper (at beta = 0.5) was an artifact of a smaller system size. This brings into question all results at the smaller system size, potentially including all the quantitative results of the paper. The authors should be able to argue that the other results will not depend on system size. The correlation length in Figure 3b is by eye more than the system size, indicating a potential qualitative change with increasing system size (which the authors find). The correlation length in other figures is less than the system size, indicating that they may be fine. The authors need to add some of this discussion to reassure the reader.