How often can someone edit a post?
Losing the collected trust votes would be really bad.
The voting should be in a thread that users better not need to delete.
So maybe better make it separate then.
No one should be forced to lose the collected trust votes just because the system does not allow any more update edits to their trading post.
Maybe there is a way to leave that post without restrictions in numbers of edits?
I think @SammyG would know
Not specific posts unfortunately. Me raising the limits of edited posts makes it possible for all posts to be edited that many times. But editing posts is fine since we can see the history anyways. So the limit can be raised in general.
Ahh bummer.
Thank you! But then we can proceed with that idea and all be focused on that thread not looking else where in a different thread if someone is trusted or not i think.
Currently giving the format a test with a few useful addons. Will post here the final draft for everyone to give feedback then wecll put the system to use
Here’s the rough draft
Members post their own poll here.
Only give votes if you have experience doing transactions with them. (
Agreed or no?)
Focus more on who voted; not the number of people. You can see more details by clicking on the avatar pictures in the polls.
New members will need to give their own NFT / funds first to trusted members to build trust and make their own poll here.
(Exceptions may apply)
Requirements. The post will be deleted if it is not done in this way:
( 
optional? Would some of these be a better idea to be mandatory?)
I’ll post a picture step by step here later
Show who voted: Reply > Gear icon > Build Poll > Gear icon, bottom left > scroll all the way down > check 
“Show who voted”
Limit to member trust level: Set trust level 2 for members, level 1 for regulars.
( Feel free to suggest what else)**
Poll Format Post Proposal
Here is what the post may look like
Error “You cannot change poll after the 1st 5 mins”
This turns up if i try to edit the poll again. it seems it still shows that error even after 5 minutes so a bug. Turns out it seems we all have to do the poll thing perfectly once to keep from having that issue
Poll 1 - Part 1 of 2
0 voters
Poll 1 - Part 2 of 2 ( Would this be necessary?)
0 voters
Payment type:
Paypal F&F, Venmo, Cashapp, Money Order
@JAAJ @anon73693188 @SammyG @Powren @Alex @anon3411921 @Nice2knowU @Maoshan_Wanderer @Zen @Psimindset @DR_MANHATTAN and anyone else that would like their input since i don’t know everyone who may want to share
This is a tricky bit to nail down. I appreciate your diligence in this. 
I can delete this in a bit so it doesn’t mess up your thread.
You’re fine. Just take your time. This is a 1 time deal so lets make it count
Ohh i hadnt seen this, and strange that nobody has commented maybe it was hidden, ill read and get back to give feedback and thank you for all you do!
The punctual part can be hard, since there are so many locations/time zones that ppl are operating from. Knowing that someone responds promptly to an ad is nice, but in this case not always practical.
Maybe we can encourage people to add “Timezone” info as a note for the poll? Or possibly country of origin? country / location may be too intrusive in privacy so timezone may be better
good to go
but be careful of manipulation of vote
for example person create several accounts to vote for someone just who he can mess around
something that can protect against this too but showing how older their profile is or what trust level they’ve reached i mean for voters
not a problem when people read this
Hello, just seeing this. I will give feedback soon after work. Thank you 
The fair pricing is technically very subjective. What’s fair to me might be horrendous for someone else. (The pirates for example deem zero a fair price).
I think my only comment would be that the polls should have both reasons:
First poll:
1- trusted
2- not trusted
3- trusted but some issues
2nd poll (why) and we can choose up to 4 options not limited to 2:
1- Puntual
2- Responsive
3- Fair Price (this shouldnt be an option, anyone can ask for whatever they feel like, i pointed out about one member the other day because offering for higher price a NFT that is still for sale on the stores, that i still believe is sketchy however its peoples responsibility to check the main thread of x NFT to see if its still a public one and what the price is before buying from someone else)
4- Secure
Then 2nd part of the why, why + just marking is enough
But (when feedback is negative):
1- Puntual (received the money or the NFT, did not send theirs right away -this in the case both were talking about doing the transaction right at that moment and then the other part disappeared or took hours to send theirs, or came out with the “i dont know why is not sending its stuck on a loop” because while that can be real, at this point everybody should know that when that happens it means they dont have enough SOL, it should be something they have to talk and show proof (screen shoot) that they have enough before sending anything)
2- Responsive (only mark it when they had the loop issue mentioned above or Paypal/wise etc confirmation and did not pursuit solving the issue right away or soon enough) but not because it took hours to reply if yes or not, said were interested but then didnt reply to finish the deal etc, because tho it shows good character if done properly, it shouldnt go as far as being marked as possible untrusted person to do deals with, unfortunately sales or trades of any kind commonly encounter that situation, plus difference of time zones and busy schedules etc.
3- Fair Price (again no, unless suddenly the price goes up while discussing via PM, or if the person is pestering for a lower price)
4- Secure (well, the transaction failed, or if the transaction went through then they changed their mind and want to undo the deal)
As for who votes for who, i do agree in votes of positive character (so long time forum members can vote for x y person even if they havent done any transactions, still under their responsibility to vote with care) other than those i think it should exclusively be people that have done deals AND that can still show proof of correct transaction (older back and forth messages etc) in case of any issue arises, or in case the person that is unsure of dealing with someone can PM asking for proofs yes only vote for someone if you are willing to send proofs etc 
i think its the only way we avoid people voting + just to support untrusting people/scammers/thieves
And same for the - votes. Can only vote if you have proof of said option showing failure to deliver and finish a transaction. Otherwise no, so that erases the possibility of people just being mean, petty or looking to stop a transaction just so they or their friends can trade/sell instead.
Also maybe, to avoid people replying to x person re a transaction, should just vote and then go to the scammer post and link the person offering then make whatever comment if negative WITH proof.
I was going to write but @anon73693188 pretty much summed up what I was thinking so I agree with him.
A quick note for anyone having the idea(s) of adding more ‘middleman’ / third party trade into this topic
Here are posts relating to the topic with thoughts / opinions on the matter
Scam / Counterfeit Reports Thread for Sapien Medicine - #32 by Divine_Lotus
Keep in mind that Sammy has been quite busy nowadays so be mindful that such a system may or may not be implemented. Depends on Sam and Dream for the decision making
And a similar idea
Forum Ideas/Feedback/Suggestions - #188 by JAAJ
Also if you have criticism for ‘marketing’ on the matter in relation to promoting services
Google and Microsoft have built in two-factor authentication. This could certainly be used on the initial sales, so that one could always access lost audio files, in the same way that people retrieve lost passwords.
Perhaps after a subsequent sale, there can be an automatic update to the two factor identification, with the NFT in the wallet counting as a factor, so that the unattached audio file can be accessed in the event of seller failure or simply to account for the loss of a file—hard drive crash, for instance.
As to securing a successful transfer of cash for NFTs—I take a look at the Microsoft/Google tech more deeply later. There’s also may be an approach with blockchain QRs, but at a certain point your just recreating an exchange,