A use case scenario: I am reading a paper and I get stuck on some point. It is obvious to me that everyone else who tried to understand this point would get stuck. I ask around, people either haven't seen the paper at all or didn't care about this particular point. I waste a lot of time, find that maybe the statement is wrong as stated, or it can be fixed in some way, or it is correct but I made a mistake.
Anyway, just having a chance to see if anyone else encountered the same problem with the same paper would be very useful to me. So I would like to have a platform to discuss papers.
When I discuss this idea with colleagues, I find that many oppose it, mostly because of fear that it would be abused, i.e. people would push their political agenda, those who don't understand the content, but have enough influence, would be able to discredit the paper, etc. I would like to stress that I want to discuss papers from a purely technical point of view, in exactly the same way as questions on MO are asked and answered. It is not about discussing if a paper is important, or if the proofs are complete. I would like to be able to exchange ideas with other people who tried to read the same paper, in order to answer the questions I have in mind, and answer other's questions. I think MO's philosophy suits this purpose perfectly, why not adapt it better for discussing papers?