I have been hesitant about supporting a group like this as I really am not sure about the goal/direction of the initiative.
Using a recent post as a reference, Identity & Content Verification Guide. In there it starts to approach the idea that identity verification is not always appropriate to ask for, and how it should be handled.
I would say for weeks leading up this post the group has fueled the cries for identity verification, Unverified Identity being commonly listed in the weekly reports. In a recent post (Identity & Content Verification Guide) it starts to talk about how it will be using it's reputation and power to flag comments they feel ask for this in a manner not appropriate. Isn't this change a direct result of a member, or at least an affiliate, doggedly pursuing identity verification of someone not wanting revealed?
In the original post from steemcleaners it is said members can remain secret. How are these "secret" members held accountable for their decisions and day to day interactions on the platform? I ran into one member several weeks ago, I assume they are a member as they are apparently active in the abuse channel, and the statement "less you do damage to your own rep" was leveled at me. However it was meant to be said, it could be received as a veiled threat because they were questioned.
I have seen lots of rewards being issues to various platform users from the wallet of @steemcleaners, but no notes as to what they are being rewarded for. I am not in any way crying foul, but I do like the idea of accountability for the funds when asking for support through funding.
Again, I am not opposed to a group that handles these concerns, but I would really like to see something different than the current model for me to support it.
Thanks for the thoughts @clevecross, let me see if I can address some of your concerns.
For reference, combating fraud and plagiarism has been happening for many months, from users doing it out of goodwill and honest intentions, and no rewards. These users also received flags on their own content often, from retaliation. In addtion, them spending their time and voting power of fighting this abuse is an opportunity cost compared to trying to earn a reward on a rewards-based platform.
These posts are actually in response to non members whom have gotten far too carried away with hunting for verification. @steemcleaners has always followed the practices we preach in that post, however other steemians were unaware of our rules for verification-asking. So the post was meant to clarify our asks for verification, in the hopes that these non-members will understand better.
The members are held accountable by a group based reputation and the incentive for rewards. If any one member abuses the steemcleaners account, they abuse the whole group (and forfeit rewards), which will cause support for the group to dissipate (e.g. no more funding from @smooth or @nextgencrypto). So far, we have had absolutely no internal issues - as all our members have been fighting abuse long before being rewarded for it, we have maintained unit cohesion.
There are many non-members active in the SA-C channel, an unfortunately that includes trolls due to the nature of a public channel. I can tell you that none of our members would say that. Unfortunately due to the trolling issues, we have required our private members only channel.
I understand the concern over reward distribution, however I would encourage you to contact one of our financial supporters ( @smooth can probably help with this) if you would like to audit the payout structure. However, if you would like to audit the work associated with the payout, every single action the @steemcleaners account takes is logged and these logs are publicly released on the account. I encourage you to look through all the posts in our logs, and if you see behaviour you do not agree with, you can message me directly in steemit.chat and I will make sure action is taken.
I hope this addresses some of your concerns, and if you do have feedback for how we can better structure the group you're welcome to chat with me in steemit.chat. We're still a new initiative, and growth and change is bound to occur, we just need to make sure it's always in a positive direction.
Thank you @anyx. This actually answers a lot of questions of my own too. I am grateful for what steemcleaners do and applaud everybody working for the initiative. I have however had my own concerns. They are not so great that I would say "I don't support" steemcleaners, but they are just concerns I think with time will become a problem as the platform expands.
I have seen this for myself where users see the abuse channel as something to join and make themselves useful, and then wind up making big mistakes with their take on policing. I have seen some posts about how to address things like plagiarism, sort of like having "policing etiquette" and this is helpful, but it's not a long term solution. I almost feel like there needs to be a sort-of training period for people entering into this activity. I see that currently anybody who reports plagiarism can get payed by steemcleaners and that is a good thing. But are there not rules against users speaking on behalf of steemcleaners unless they have been officially affiliated (by going through a training period or just learning from those more experienced)?
Just my thoughts on an issue I imagine could get a lot worse if it isn't prepared for. Policing is necessary, but we need to be careful of people getting carried away with policing and causing people to feel unwelcome...
Thanks @beanz, talking to @clevercross and reading this has made me realize that we need to be more clear with the fact that "if it's not from the @steemcleaners account, its not from steemcleaners". We don't have "affiliates".
I think we need to make a post about it to clarify some of this stuff.
I apologize for my above "concerns". My understanding of the group was flawed and after speaking to anyx in a chat, I was informed that they are unfounded and based on false assumptions
No need to apologize! I am very glad we talked, and it has made me realize that we need to be more clear that steemitabuse-classic is not a part of steemcleaners, and that we need to perhaps better inform the public of what we do. As I mentioned just now to beanz, I think we'll make a post about it.