A peer is an equal, except as a reviewer, when they are more like capricious dictators. (The other possibility is that the person is a member of a peerage.)
We review our peers’ work because we know that we are all fallible. And because we know that the single best way we can overcome our own limitations is by relying on well-motivated, informed, others. We review to catch what our peers may have missed, to flag important methodological issues, to provide suggestions for clarifying and improving the presentation of results, among other such things. But given a disappointingly long history of capricious reviews, authors need assurance. So consider including in the next review a version of the following note:
Reviewers are authors too. And just as fallible, adjusting for time devoted to the task. So this review doesn’t come with the implied contract to follow all ill-advised things or suffer. If you disagree with something, I would appreciate a small note. But rejecting a bad proposal is as important as accepting a good one.
Fear no capriciousness. And I wish you well.