One other thing to note of course, since your initial submissions would be reviewed by a group of people, no one person could deny you status as a revenue sharing member regardless, so as long as you make a quality submission you should be good to go.

Have the site track the committee members votes both ya and nay, and if you have someone with a much higher percentage of nay votes per month they'll stand out like a sore thumb, giving you the ability to deal with the QC member by either talking to them about your expectations or in extreme cases just replacing them with someone else.  I think if the QC members know their votes are being tallied in such a fashion they'll stay honest enough, and granted one guy might be a bit more particular in what he feels a quality submission is but again this will cause a minor variance in vote tallies, not a huge one.  A  huge one gets you noticed.

I guess my thinking here is it's alot easier as a site admin to ride herd on a small group to whom you have delegated some authority than it is to try and police the entire site yourself, and I think it wouldn't take long before you could get a good staff together to QC material and review those that have been marked as questionable by concerned site members.  But not to worry, I don't take your pointing out areas of concern about these ideas as a bad thing, indeed I think it's a good thing when people do that.  Gives you a chance to consider all the pro's and con's and fix problems before they arise.