The self-righteous flagging or downvoting of another person's post has been a paramount issue (number two next to only collapsing Steem/crypto values overall) since [my] first beginning as a user back in mid-December of 2017. I have seen it take place in all of its ridiculousness turning some of the better and smarter people on here capable of producing great things to this platform into this counterproductive absurdity. Transforming their equity into negating the value of another person's post into nil because the flagging party can unilaterally determine that person or post is or is not worthy of gathering an additional stake of equity is something that can definitely be countered by the platform if there is any interest at all in doing so as you will further read.
The original idea of flagging damaging, harmful, ruthless, maybe even perceptually evil material for those of us that enjoy the uncensored unfiltered platform ability to talk about what we want without worrying about the outcome of the centralized powers "above" banning or censoring you because of the offense of their more elite "sensibilities" is what has led many people to the Steemit platform in the first place. In an ironic twist purity of intent has turned into a tragedy of comical enforcement through feuds that had little or any common sense behind the original or ongoing reasons for destroying others that have less of a stake in the company of the unilateral (in some cases becoming more tyrannical than any centralized social media conglomerate could ever hope to be) at the will of the down voter. A toxic area ravaged daily by war is never the kind of place you want to plant a garden or create any kind of open market of products or ideas due to the poison in the air and constant lack of ability to perform any activity without permanently vaulting in the back of your mind the reprisal that could offend in any way an active destroyer of content on this platform.
The idea of better managing the flag/downvote option on the Steemit platform is a simple one in my opinion. Adjust the cost in voting power to twice (or possibly even more expensive cost of voting power if need be) as much as a standard 100% upvote. In this light the user chooses how their wealth is distributed among deserving users transforming into more value to the platform, at a bare minimum twice the value of flagging material that needs to be silenced in maybe a less unilateral, or perhaps more expensive manner. The option to flag others that are abusive in your opinion to the platform or your sensibilities is still of course there, but would become half as powerful as those who wish to create, in that you need to align more of a consensus among others on the platform (equal or greater to your vote value/reputation) to get the full value currently being awarded to those that are habitual and nonchalant flagging parties of other peoples material while still enjoying the full value (of however their accounts continue to grow or maintain their stakes of value on the Steemit platform) of continued relative relevance enabling the unintended consequences now realized in this behavior. So ongoing flag feuds can be continued if need be, but collateral damage is met with twice as much cost in the vote value of the feuding parties, allowing the rest of the platform to build at twice (and then some-along with curation value acquired) among those who may continue their ongoing time on the platform in pursuit of what they would rather like to see or that brings them happiness...versus the ongoing creation of misery in tyrannical/unilateral fashion of those that the more highly staked account holder may proceed in destroying due to their circumstance of stake on the platform.
I don't care which of these ongoing rivalries that you may or may not be involved in how any given user may feel getting caught in between the current Steemit sanctioned indifference but rather suggest that the dis-incentivizing by cutting the value of a down vote by a 100% (or more) penalty in voting value would be exactly what the doctor ordered in letting those that have actively forced the boycott of certain people's content on the platform should incur the cost over time, 100% of the time those that are unilaterally attacked in these sparring matches in rhetorical moral purity in the eyes of a few; Rather than the equity and aspiration of the many that will allow the platform to grow through word of mouth while building their stake in an open decentralized platform for social communities to grow and prosper on the Steemit platform.
I ask that you don't worry about upvoting this, but please comment, resteem, and send this post link to any witness you vote for so that this can become a much overdue priority in the next fork and that you do care about this issue ongoing.