Serious question as opposed to a rant, but honestly I must be missing something lately. Have had a few PM exchanges with ladies here on TER and asked them to review my whitelistings, and given them my P411 (where I have several OKs) and have been directed to filling out their screening form on their website.  

Providers have every right to set their screening procedures as they see fit, just as clients have every right to be cautious with their personal information. That, unfortunately, often leads to situations where the conflict can't be resolved. Thankfully there are plenty of fish in the sea and you just need to move on and have confidence that you'll find a good fit (figuratively and literally).

to choose from who will play by your rules. Just move on to the next one!

as verification on a case-by-case basis. If I am comfortable with a potential client's okays, I'll ask for an Appointment Request via P411 in lieu of a booking form submission.

A local agency has the P411 logo on their website. Any man who is a member of P411 in good standing might see that logo on their website and believe his membership will pass muster. It won't. As part of the screening process the  agency also requires a selfie while you're holding your driver's license. Then what pray tell is the reason for the P411 logo on their website? Decoration?

I had  [7] Seven  P411 okays. No negatives there. Providers often reject this, stating that they are over a year old...
So, i stopped wasting $$ on P411 and now mostly frequent AMPs instead.  

OK; as i said, for me, an insurmountable hassle and catch 22. P411 is worthless, and I have no recent references Of course, your prerogative.

I will always take someone with a few P411 okays. The only exception to this is if the last okay is more than a year or so old.

P411 and RSK have been devalued by providers and agencies to the level of Mickey Mouse organizations. When I joined P411 five years ago they called my job and spoke to my boss to verify who I was. When I joined RSK back in 2008 I had to fax them two consecutive paycheck stubs to confirm my identity.

Thanks for the clarification Meredith. But you know what? I'm a member of P411 in good standing. The local agency is also a member of P411. I shouldn't have to jump thru hoops like sending a selfie of myself holding up my driver's license.

Always the first to reply. Do you have a job? He already stated that they have the right to set their own screening methods...why don't you read the entire post before stating the obvious sherlock.

Sometimes, personal circumstances [finances, health, etc.] mandate a year's hiatus from "Okays".
Why one year ??  A man's personality , demeanor does not mutate at age 58 !

One issue many clients have in the DMV, probably more so than in other areas, is the requirement to maintain a security clearance for their job, whether they work directly for govt or for the many govt contractors/subcontractors. One unfortunate feature of getting/keeping a clearance is that it can be a subjective process. Suspensions/revocations can be imposed for even a scintilla of participation in any illicit activity. Many providers are trustworthy, but not all. And even a responsible provider/agency could get entangled in an investigation (or hack) in which PII on a phone, computer, server/website logs, etc., could be compromised. With that info in hand, LE might not pursue charges but they've been known to notify the govt agency/contractor. Security officials will then demand an explanation and, depending on how they see things, might cut the guy a break or might suspend/revoke his clearance. If the latter happens, his livelihood is pretty much done because clearance data is widely shared and he won't be able to work anywhere that requires one. Job gone -> family (if applicable) gone -> life ruined. While I completely understand the position of the provider(s) on this issue, just wanted to share something to consider from the other side of the coin.

...might not be super common but I wouldn't call it rare. It's not that hard to find a provider with a "good client gone bad" story (of a client in their 50's/60's/70's+).  

Highly unlikely for a TER guy. I know nothing in life is 100% risk free. But, i suspect that a bit of paranoia could be working here.  
As I said, your prerogative.

... essentially a place to hold your refs not as a be-all-end-all point of screening. And recommended that the providers ask for add'l screening if they felt the need for it.

He's right

Restating a point made by others, before moving on to build upon that point (of shared agreement) is actually quite common in debate, discussion, and argumentation. But there's no way you'd know that because once you stumbled across the ad hominem fallacy you came to a full stop and said "That's for me!" It's quite a tragic raison d'etre, when you think about it (which you obviously don't). So, in the same way you were comprehensively shown to be a pathetic laughingstock on the General Discussion board, I'm more than happy to go down that same path here, so that Washington DC readers can witness the fullness of your idiocy. Exposing a putz like you has its intrinsic rewards and I view it as one way to contribute to the TER community.

Thank you for all your support

Thank you sweetie was amazing words

If you perceive it that way, it might simply be your personal bias showing, which is certainly understandable. My only purpose in describing the other side of the coin was to point out that clients have legitimate concerns. I don't want anyone to get busted, so your comment about the life/work of a client being valued more highly than your own is definitely a misunderstanding of both my logic and my intent. I have noticed a tendency of some providers to get bitchy if/when clients have reservations about giving PII. Hopefully the better each side understands the other the smoother things can be made. Or, at the very least, if mutual agreement can't be achieved at least everyone can go their own way without finger-pointing and blame-mongering.

Thank you so much for such a well thought out reply.  You explained beautifully.  Thank you again.

First of all, the health crisis has put many doctors in an impossible position because they lack the resources to save everyone who might otherwise be saved. It's a decision that's been forced upon them, not one they willingly sought and the victims of the virus also did not willingly seek to be in that position. With sex workers and their clients, each one is a willing participant in a lifestyle/profession which, by its very nature, always has and always will entail some degree of risk (at least in areas where it's not legal). And each participant has the right to make their own decisions, not imposed by some third party. Providers have their best interests in mind and clients have theirs. When they can come to a mutual arrangement, that's wonderful. When they can't, it's my hope they can respect the other side without needless finger-pointing. And while the consequences of a bad decision can be quite serious, it's hard to see how that begins to approach the life-or-death COVID-19 scenario. So, while I can appreciate where you're coming from, this particular analogy is a bit off the mark and a bridge too far, IMO.

Boro(girl). Stalker guy. Chloe and Samantha regret the unwanted attention you provided. When you duck responsibility for bc sharing,  many that saved messages will out you chubby boy.  

be comfortable providing my PII to anyone no matter who it is.  

What are we waiting for?

I agree bud. I'm not one to ever even remotely try to pressure someone into accepting my verification if they aren't comfortable. It's their choice and as I mentioned in my original post (only to have a number of "just move on" pieces of advice) lol

Well one reason you might want to provide specific contacts is as a common courtesy to the person acting as your reference. My guess is that some (many?) provider will use whatever back channels they have so that type of validation probably occurs anyhow but...

to see providers who, within a few months of becoming a 411 member, started to believe that they know how its 'supposed' to work, how it 'should' work etc and anyone not following what they do has lower standards.