If by collateral damage you mean the tweet you shared in your other post[1], I can't tell how that is related to preventing the Ordinals spam by patching the exploit because it seems like a mining pool refused to mine a CoinJoin transaction which is an entirely different discussion specially since they are arguing over the weird limit their pool sets on OP_RETURN which is another unrelated matter here!!!
I don't see that it is unrelated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only two possible outcomes here. Either:
a) LukeJr is somehow unaware that 42 bytes and 83 bytes are not the same value and he's some sort of putz
or
b) LukeJr knowingly reduced the permitted size of OP_RETURN data in his Bitcoin Knots client (which that pool are using) because he wants to create a hostile environment for non-standard transactions and managed to unwittingly nuke some coinjoin transactions by mistake.
It's not necessarily that the pool are
refusing to mine those transactions, it's that the software they're running simply
doesn't recognise those transactions. All because a developer tried to make things more restrictive and didn't think it through to conclusion.