Screening is important, lets not debate why. How to do it is not obvious, and neither how to check if it is done at all. I just want to state a few observations and propose a method to do it - feel free to comment.
(1) Screening boils down to how much trust and what exact information you are willing to put in the hands of a stranger to be published online, and how it helps your risk mitigation. No info = no references for screening, some info = risk of that info being published in a public forum.
(2) Many hobbyists do not have sufficient confidence in P411, and while it is an excellent tool for advertising and other member services, There is not a single ad stating "I do not see gents without P411 ID" => Ladies do see hobbyists without a P411 ID, and needs to screen them, too.
(3) ECCIE, being an anonymous board, can be infiltrated by anyone => you cannot trust fellow posters unless you have personally met them at a social and he has somehow gained your trust.
(4) If a lady sees 20gents/wk and has to provide references for upto 3mo,
she has to save 20x13=260names/characteristics in some memory, which can be (a) her brain - unreliable (b) written in a diary - unsafe (c) online - access control becomes difficult. If a lady does this, I'd feel my information is somewhere being compromised, and if she doesnt, there is no way she can provide references.
The proposal:
Ladies are authorized to put in a 1-line response to their own reviews - a straight forward OK/DNS, or "PM me for details" if she doesnt want her response to be public.
This response becomes the reference - a gent can cite a few of his past reviews as reference - the OK's are right there, if the provider cares to check. She doesnt have to call anybody or go to another website if it is happening as a series of PM's within ECCIE. She just needs to know the OK-ing person herself or through somebody she knows.
Other advantages -
(1) It encourages the hobbyist to write reviews, not just to share his experience for fellow hobbyist's benefit but for himself to get references for future encounters.
(2) Even if a phone/e-mail is compromised, the older OK's continue to serve as valid references for the hobbyist.
(3) It encourages the ladies to OK or not - not responding to reviews consistently should make her business suffer, since hobbyists will note that this lady does not provide references
(4) Reputation/credibility of the reviewer/provider builds up over time, and the anxiety over a "new name/handle on the board" is reduced.
(5) The reference process will not cost the reference provider any time, for which she is not being compensated anyway.
(6) The lady will not have to maintain a diary (paper/online) recording the names/numbers of her clientale for last 3 months - hobbyists will feel safer with such ladies.
That's the summary of my thoughts (albeit long). Thanks for reading, - aGM.