I'll lead off by saying I'm reading this poll narrowly. It specifically says "
if they ghost." That means no courtesy communication after commitment and/or not showing up.
The other/dead site had this exact rule. It ran as intended, and it allowed for neutral feedback if someone ghosted. I think there is no harm in permitting neutral feedback, it keeps people honest. The inverse of this is to permit an influx of bad actors and reduce trustworthiness in the commitment process.
Like the old site, the words "unequivocal 'I'll take it'" should be the triggering event on the buyer's side.
While I like the idea, sometimes life does happen even with the best of intentions. A financial emergency can come up or an angry spouse or you realize you’re short on rent. Regardless of the situation, maybe have a way to notate it after it becomes a common reoccurrence with someone instead of black eye that could follow you
Without getting into a whole thing here (basic 1L year law school principles only, please feel free to take a UCC contracts course if you want to know the history and principles that led to this structure), an advertisement is an invitation to conduct a transaction. A response to the advertisement is the offer to transact. The offer can be accepted, and the deal thereby concluded, by performance (i.e., the sale). If life happens, then they can
withdraw the offer, i.e., communicate a "never mind, I had a family emergency come up". If it was a instantaneous emergency, then it can at least be communicated after the fact as a courtesy.
This helps people either avoid a time and travel sink, or at the very least reasonably explains where the losses they incurred in time and travel/money were expended (i.e., family emergency). And then when reasonably communicated, it can be dealt with in a civil manner. Meanwhile, it helps the community at large avoid encounters with repeat bad actors, and thus acts as a protective mechanism against these people.
Just my I guess 25 cents, cuz that was longer than I initially intended.