This isn't even about hating one another. This is just about setting up a plot point and then doing very, very little with it. As a distinct identity the Maquis were basically gone by the third season, and the consequences of their identity in the first two seasons was minimal. Their biggest role was an excuse to include more deviant characters in the crew - the unorthodox, insubordiant bunch in "Learning Curve", psycopaths like Lon Suder or traitors like Jonas. When it comes down to it Seska played a more major role in the series arc and stories than the Maquis did.
The Maquis never really had a distinct identity beyond "people who fight the Cardassians and have to be thieves sometimes because they don't have Starfleet resources", certainly no real ideological differences between them and the Feds (yes yes, we can blather all we want about Eddington but he never outlines his differences between the Maquis and Feds either). So there was little point in going on about "crew tensions" when there were none to begin with that really warranted holding onto.
And of course Seska would play a bigger role, since she was a real villain.
If you want a comparison with DS9, here's one: The Bajoran Militia. They don't hate Starfleet, but the Bajoran Militia are a recognisably distinct group and the tension was exploited occasionally - and early in the Dominion War, it was crucial because Bajor was neutral yet the Federation was not. There are also some intellectual differences - Bajorans are by and large religious, while Starfleet is very secular. So one could get episodes like "In the Hands of the Prophets" which played on this distinction in a meaningful way. Lon Suder might kill people but he just did so 'cause he's crazy - he need not be Maquis at all, really - but Neela did so becuase of her Bajoran beliefs.
Because the Bajorans had their own planet that was their own separate place, with their own society culture and history apart from the Feds. There were REAL differences to exploit, while there weren't any with the Maquis (that made any sense).
Again you're dealing with an amorphous they, a bunch of straw-men. Even if such people exist, it's probably more productive to argue with people who think Voyager could have done better rather than feel Voyager could not work at all.
The people who think VOY could have done better think that "VOY done better" should have been them all immediately becoming bloodthirsty rogues. In other words, what they want was not Trek in the least. Those people should just go off and watch other shows and leave us alone.
DS9 is far from a flawless series
Ask around these boards and you'll see that DS9 is on a untouchable pedestal of utter perfection that no one is allowed to criticize.
BSG has also taken quite a bit of criticism over the years, particularly for how the later seasons and finale turned out.
Well, I never liked the show and my attempts at watching it at points only made me dislike it more. I was laughing at all the apologists and defenders of that horrible finale though.
Come now. That degree of character conflict didn't even happen in DS9. I'm sure Niners would have been happy with, well, the level of character conflict they got in DS9!
Which really wasn't all that much, since most of their conflict was from external sources. Kai Winn doesn't count because she was a villain. So basically they saw VOY as their way of living out the raw brutality they wished DS9 had and were PO'ed when the crew decided not to be animals.