Your proposal is self-contradictory. You say posts should not be flagged due to disagreement but you propose to flag people with whom you have a curation-style disagreement.
Your proposal also suggests making many times worse the problem you complain about because you propose to turn one "bad" flag into many more as multiple people flag the "bad flaggers'" new content.
How do you reliably determine when the curation activity you disagree with has ended? How do you communicate that across the network of curators in a timely way?
This is touched on in the white paper. People flagging for the unproductive reasons you mentioned is a minor matter and it doesn't require a crusade to keep it under control.
I suggest you give this more thought before proceeding further.
See, you disagree with me. Now that is no reason for me to flag you, is it?
(I just won't upvote you because I think you are either wrong or have misunderstood my proposal)
Likewise, you disagree with some people's curation choices. Is that any reason to flag posts you wouldn't otherwise have flagged? What you propose is, itself, abuse.
I am saying that they should post their reason for the flag in a reply. It would then become apparent to discerning readers whether they are abusing their Admin powers or not. If they post their reason then no flagging of their future posts. But their motives become more transparent and displays of envy and jealousy will probably cost them (vested) followers.
As I stated on another comment on this blog, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment in the post. However @georgedonnellly may have one salient point; Engaging in "flag wars" in an attempt to control flag abuse, may not be the best approach. I think additional functionality is needed to handle this. See my post above.
Thanks again for bringing focus to this issue!
The concensus for appropriate flagging is going to keep changing and eventually disappear as steemit expands to the masses and telling people off becomes pointless. Here are my thoughts.
Haha, tough crowd. I'm with you on the down voting.
There is no contradiction. I am proposing that flagging without a reply stating the reason for the flag be considered as a steemit abuse (as it was before - just new people don't know about it). And the flag abusers merely need to stop downvoting without valid explanation in responses in order to remove the sanction.
The contradiction is that you propose to meet what you consider to be abuse (might or might not be, might have negligible impact) with even greater abuses.
It's also contradictory because you imply people are flagging too much but you want to build a group of people and train them to flag even more.
I don't think you're going to get the flagging army you want, because flagging is a risky activity and can cost you money.
Bad flaggers are not going to prosper. Not unless you start encouraging people to be bad flaggers, as you propose.