In a previous comment you said the following to me:

"It’s also used to sarcastically point out that whatever the individual is complaining about is silly and obviously didn’t actually harm them."

In the above you were suggesting that downvotes do not do harm.

In this post you said:

"Yep that’s right, this is a shit post completely dedicated to helping counter our village idiot’s damage."

So, I'm just trying to follow the logic here; When a downvote is done for reward disputes, it is a loving and gentle action that causes no harm whatsoever. However, when the recipient of the downvote (who I am guessing does not receive it well,) returns the favor, then and only then is the downvote damaging, and creates a need for healing?

Sorry, I had to call shenanigans on this one as it doesn't make any sense. It seems like a double standard at best or hypocrisy at worst. You know what I'm thinking, I bet you didn't even realize it, this is why I'm pointing it out. Question is after you realize it, will it cause you to speak to things differently, and or recognize the pain the other side might feel.

You know, in the white paper it says that: "A major part of minimizing abuse is the rate-limiting of voting." Maybe if the rate-limited voting numbers were fixed, it would negate the need for these snarky downvote wars where both sides see themselves as in the right, and both sides think they are not harming each other.