  Recently, we introduced [Physical Review E 100, 022303 (2019)] a stochastic
social balance model with Glauber dynamics which takes into account the role of
randomness in the individual's behavior. One important finding of our study was
a phase transition from a balance state to an imbalance state as the randomness
crosses a critical value, which was shown to vanish in the thermodynamic limit.
In a recent similar study [K. Malarz and K. Ku\l akowskiy, (2020),
arXiv:2009.10136], it was shown that the critical randomness tends to infinity
as the system size diverges. This led the authors to question our results.
Here, we show that this apparent inconsistency is the results of different
definitions of energy in each model. We also demonstrate that synchronous and
sequential updating rules can largely affect the results, in contrast with the
claims made by the aforementioned authors.
