I am trying to understand why this post now. Why not before the decision was made? Or did the opinion of the majority not really matter?

I will not be taking part in the flagging game. I have flagged, but rarely and only if I see something very bad (a scam which can hurt others) - and if the poster shows me I am wrong, I instantly unflag.

I refuse to stand as judge over posts that do not meet my criteria, as I've seen that others do enjoy them. Also, I have seen flags by those like trashit, which were made because of political reasons (someone who mentioned he watches Alex Jones) or the post is anti-vaccine. The wording of the flag-comments on trashit are vicious or, at best, real nasty. He programmed his flag-bot in this way because he has been delegated over 25,000 SP and feels powerful, but I have not seen any good posts by this fairly new 'trash' account.

This is supposed to improve our platform?

The way I see it, we have a few choices, under the new regime. We all go ahead full steam and flag everyone we do not like, or else, we look at ways to stop others from flagging us.

Tying this in to the curating changes (taking from authors, not the 25% as it is-was, but 50% and, as was said in one of the posts by those in power, maybe at next HF we can go to 80% for curators and 20% for authors, because, as was said, authors are not important to steemit, only the curators are), I do not find cause to feel optimistic about the future of this platform.

I also would like to know how we can protect ourselves if we are targetted by some nasty people, can we, for instance set our setting to Deny Payments? Would that prevent flagging, or could they still flag so as to affect our Rep (this is I was told by someone else). Is it true?

As for the curating. I refuse to write stories, spend hours on them and then have a few of those who upvote me take the lions share. It is NOT as if the curators are using their own money and therefore deserve a big thank you. They are using common funds without cost to them, but because they think a post will do well and earn them money, we must increase the rewards to them? BS.

I know that of those who upvote me, most do so as a way of rewarding me for the post, or by some as a way of thanking me for supporting them when they first started on steemit. Those are the kind of reasons that evoke good feelings and help generate friendships, which makes the platform a nice place to be. Your way, I think, will bring about the opposite.

A sort of PS here: It also means I am going to have to withdraw almost all my witness voting, as most of them support the changes of this HF, even if only because they feel obliged to.

Which leads me to the question: Of the members with a Rep of 70 or above - how many of them have never upvoted their own posts, or those of another, so that they get upvoted by that person in return? How many have ever purchased a vote or promised, 'follow and upvote me and I will follow and upvote you'? But now, that they have high reps and strong SP, they want to ensure we cannot do the same as them? Why? Are we really meant to bvelieve they are being altruistic and acting for our own good? (sorry, but I am not that much of a 'snowflake').

I am considering denying payments for my story posts, only allowing them if I make a news or political post. I am certain that by my doing so, I will be contributing to the platforms by my stories, while not funding leeches (those who are not satisfied by the current 25%). I can get rewarded on some of the alternatives which have sprung up recently.