Some of all of the above, really. But it's a bit more than that.Ok, I hear you.
As a community, we were pretty quick to crap all over the agency system once independent providers started to become established, with comments like "I ain't paying no pimp!" Ignoring that, as has otherwise been pointed out, having a middleman has some value as an accountability choke-point. There is only so much you can personally do to hold a provider accountable for poor behavior, poor service, or poor attitude. You can post a bad review - maybe people will see it, maybe they won't. You can personally decide to not see that provider anymore. But basically, they can keep on getting away with those behaviors indefinitely, or until enough hobbyists become aware that it affects their business. At which point, the provider changes her name and starts again (possibly with a boost, being perceived as an apparent "new girl"...). An agency owner will take action after a few complaints, and take the girl off the schedule if the complaints continue. Oh, and I wouldn't be paying a "pimp" either, because agency owners are not what most people think of when they think "pimp" (where the "pimp" takes all of the money, dribbles out some from time to time as the girl has needs, and basically controls her life - that's pretty despicable).
Oh - we did the above, unless it was convenient not to. As an example, I will cite He Who Shall Not Be Named in Shadyside... :-) Because he had the "hottest" girls in the area at the time, even though we all knew he treated them like crap (and he honestly didn't treat his customers much better). And yeah, I'm guilty there too - though in all honesty, I wouldn't have done so at all if I had not been able to bypass his incredibly intrusive screening process. That was probably selfish behavior.
Even with that dilute type of "accountability", we also had most of the means of accountability squelched because negative reviews were basically not allowed on Indys (they were almost never approved for publication), unless the provider involved was "unloved" somehow. And if you would post a negative review on another site, you ran the risk that basically *no one* who was Indys-based would even see you. We're all aware of a number of instances where a provider refused to schedule with someone, stating point-blank that it was because he'd posted negative reviews (of other providers) in the past. The influence of the Indys echo chamber extended beyond that site.
I also don't think we did enough to support the providers back during the "Local 250 Wars" that were evidencing the behaviors we actually wanted to see. I'm not sure exactly how we would have done that. But I'm sure we could have done more than we did.
I also do not forget that a number of hobbyists were complicit in all of this. The cancellation scams would never have worked if there wasn't a large enough number of hobbyists who would agree to play the game. Originally Posted by laserface
Put the agencies out of business eliminating that level of accountability
Eliminate accountability on Indys by not allowing negative reviews unless it was of someone "unloved"
Punish accountability on other sites and run the risk that basically *no one* who was Indys-based would even see you after that. (which explains why most hofo on Indy's providers here was exchange in private)
Then the Indy hobbyist cancellation scams by white knight hobbyists trying to curry favor with certain local providers