Yes.
Increasing downvotes is healthy and important for the ecosystem, so much so that I am still a strong proponent of a separate downvote power pool.
I agree with the other comments that downvotes should be more visually similar to upvotes -- it is an important UX decision that will be able to slowly change the culture to be more accepting of downvotes.
The two above changes -- separate downvote power, and equivalent UX design -- would go a long way to better sample both positive and negative feedback on a post and lead to more "fair" rewards.
One consideration would be the continuation of "flag wars" to "downvote wars". I'm not sure the best approach for avoiding this becoming more common (perhaps hiding the list of downvoters from Steemit's UX would help) but with more prevalent downvotes it is likely retaliation will increase. It is a consideration, but the benefits outweigh this concern in my opinion.
Finally, the new communities interface surrounding a new form of "flagging" should be robust. Moderation is very important for social networks, and having robust tools for community leaders to clean their space is a key element for having a good public image and leaving good impressions for newcomers.
"Downvotes are healthy and important for the ecosystem"
They aren't talking about getting rid of them, so arguing for their validity is pointless. You fell for their strawman argument!
The issue at hand is: Is flagging a comment or post exactly the opposite of upvoting it, and should they be considered opposite sides of the same coin by the site and community?
Arguing that flags/downvotes are healthy is pointless. Nobody is saying otherwise. Literally nobody.
"Literally nobody" -- not true, there are many users that argue for an "upvote only" system.
There are also many users who believe that the ratio between upvotes and downvotes should be high (for examples sake, say 90% upvotes 10% downvotes).
I'm not talking at all about their necessity, that's implied, my argument is that the ratio should be increased and more even for a healthier environment (for examples sake, say 75% upvotes, 25% downvotes). This can be achieved in multiple ways, as I explained above, such as removing the social barrier (UX) as well as the technical opportunity cost (downvote power separation).
Literally nobody in this discussion, anyway. Surely there are people who believe almost every possible thing that can be believed. But nobody in this discussion, or here in the post or comments, has that stance. Arguing against it here is silly, and off-topic.
What do you mean by the ratio between upvotes and flags? How could that be enforced, and why would we want to?
actually there are a few comments here referring to exactly that.. and there always is. As many individuals here don’t understand downvotes and why they are important, which is what anyx was pointing out. 🙂
I wasn't even talking about it until you brought it up.
The ratio of upvotes to downvotes means that, either per-user or in aggregate of the whole system, how often is an upvote used relative to a downvote. If its 100%, then only upvotes are used. If its 90%, then for every 9 upvotes there is on average 1 downvote. And so on.
My opinion and argument in both of my comments is that the number of downvotes, relative to upvotes, should be higher (i.e. more downvotes) as it creates a more healthy ecosystem.
I never talked about enforcing -- it's about incentives (or lack there-of). I strongly encourage you to re-read my comments.
Long live the n2!