I understand that these recommendations come from a good place, but labeling things as “DON’T COMMISSION AN ARTIST IF THEY DON’T HAVE TRELLO” also hurts small artists who are constantly fighting to make a living. Some people take these recommendations as absolute rules and end up focusing exclusively on those criteria. Having certain things in place never guarantees that everything will go well. It’s like when people say, “If they don’t have any open commission slots, they’re not trustworthy,” “If an artist charges too little, don’t buy from them,” or “If they don’t have any ongoing commissions, they must be a scammer,” and so on. I still believe the best recommendation is to evaluate the artist as a whole: check their reviews, social media, work history, and commission terms instead of relying on a single criterion. No single characteristic guarantees that a commission will be completed, just as the absence of one doesn't prove that someone is a scammer. Unexpected circumstances and situations beyond our control can always arise. I understand that buyers want to protect themselves, but I believe we can warn people about potential risks without unfairly hurting artists who are still building their reputations. Helping buyers make informed decisions shouldn't mean condemning artists who don't meet an arbitrary checklist of requirements.