Why would removal of flags be ruinous? I usually hate @jerrybanfield, but it seems like he has a point here. Don't really know if this point is data-driven, but why do you think Dan Larimer moved to Medium?
Assuming flags will only be given out for purposes beneficial to the larger Steem community is like assuming that every post or comment is only made for good. If you consider Spam or scams to be bad content, you must also consider a portion of flags to be 'bad flags'. Jerry does have a point here; a flag has much more psychological impact compared to an upvote.
Is 'aggrandizement' a good reason to flag?
Without downvotes the Steem platform's method of reward and stake distribution would not work. Parasitic abusers would consume the host.
Without downvote abuse, it would work even better!
How?
What part of the word "abuse" did you not understand? Steemit is flawed, it's that simple. Until Steemit is cleaned up and returned to it's original design and intent, it will never get better. Getting rid of rogue witnesses would be a good start!
Steemit's (the website) original design was a mess. Didn't have wallet pages, didn't have a lot of things. Though there was something in the original design that unfortunately has been changed. A downvote was called a downvote, not erroneously called a flag.
If you mean Steem's original design, it originally was designed and intended to have downvotes.
What I mean about Steemit's original intent was to be an uncensored blogging platform, not a runaway social network nightmare filled with bots and bullies, where B.S. earns more than thoughtful, creative content. That is what it has become unfortunately. There is nothing wrong with flagging inappropriate comment or hate speech, or anything that would be considered destructive to the platform, but certain (too many) individuals flag for the fun of it, or because it makes them feel bigger than they really are I suppose. Don't want it, don't need it, and am moving on when my power down is complete.
On Steem, I can't do much of anything to censor or remove a post made by you even 30 minutes ago. I can't downvote it and make it go away from the Steem blockhain. What a downvote does is reduce a post's rewards or its potential rewards.
It also can reduce an account's reputation score, but even accounts with negative reputation score aren't censored from the blockchain. It's a non-consensus attribute. Front ends don't need to display its effects at all, if they choose not to.
So how is it that the original intent of Steem* is not being lived up to? And why, if you equate downvoting with censorship, do you think there is nothing wrong with downvoting "inappropriate comment or hate speech" when you are implying that you'd prefer to use an uncensored platform?
*The original intent of Steemit, the website front end, was to be a Reddit-alike (not just blogging) reference example. It can and does censor posts in the form of DMCA takedown requests. Please understand the terms you're using and use them more precisely.
Without flags bad actors have free game on this platform and that is not good. We will destroy this platform if can not stop bad actors by removing their rewards, we can never censor them though.
I'm one of those bad actors you speak about (who got flagged into oblivion). So do tell... what did I do wrong? (Caution: requires a certain amount of reading and research to come to a conclusion, if you really want to back up your answer.)