... there's a menu item under reviews where Rip-offs are collected in one place. But that's only for rip-off providers.  There's also the Provider's Only board, which can be used to report bad behavior by mongers, and the Reviewer's Only board for reporting actions by providers.  Not everyone is eligible to see one of those boards, however.  

If there were a single board for this type of thing, I think there would need to be a consistent way of identifying location and the type of behavior (rip-off, NCNS etc).  In a discussion board, the only way to do that based on current functionality is with the subject line.  Given the problems people seem to have following subject line content guidelines (eg Photo board), I don't know how practical that would be.

Thus I'd prefer to keep the current practice whereby this kind of behavior is reported on local boards.  If it's behavior by a monger, it could be reported on his/her local board as well as the local board of the incident.  If it's by a visiting provider, same thing.

One caution on reporting NCNSes on a central board:  IMO NCNSes are often reported on local boards too soon, without allowing for the possibility of a true emergency and follow up by the person who didn't show.  If there were one board for this kind of thing, I'd like there to be some minimum grace period (48 hours, maybe more?).  But I think that would be impossible to enforce.  

-- Modified on 2/20/2017 6:01:08 AM

I think your actual goal is to protect others from NCNS, ROB, etc.. Would another board do that?  

In actual practice, it would require that everyone instinctively add another step to their normal search process. "Recent reviews, ad, back to reviews, google phone number, back to ad, back to reviews, google pics, ... CHECK FLAKE BOARD." (Check reference, FLAKE BOARD, etc. for Providers.) And searching another board can be inefficient, anyway.

If "flake reports" were somehow automated (e.g., linked to Profile), that at least means we don't have to consciously and deliberately do the search.  I doubt that TER would add a "Report a flake" button to the Profile page  

Then there's the problem of the reports themselves. Some would be on the mark. But I'm sure that some would be contentious: he said - she said, name-calling and more (multiple flakes!). I'm more concerned that there would be too much flak.  Not flake, but flak: a lot of off-target annoying complaints that probably are below any threshold you are thinking of.  

A ROB, NCNS, Flake report on Profiles might be good, but w/o accountability (e.g., from a named reviewer) I don't think TER would allow it.  

I think that timely, local reporting is the best option for now, even if it isn't the best way to achieve your goal in the long run.

I agree with you, it is already hard enough trusting the people who play by the rules.

consideration when I make an appointment. If they don't have P411 profile then there's higher chance of NCNS. It's not 100% because I have experienced NCNS with providers with P411 profile.