It does seem like an argument about improper genuflection, doesn't it? Like 5e isn't being treated with enough respect if you question it's design, but you can not like it because that's more easily dismissed as unsupported opinion.
Like the stealth rules, which are, at best, incomplete design. I don't think you can possibly argue that the 5e stealth rules are complete -- they explicitly tell you that stealth works how the GM determines stealth works. Incomplete design can easily be considered bad design because it doesn't do the job. I think that this was some inspired design, myself, because the design goal was "don't get into the stealth rule morass" and they neatly sidestepped it by putting that morass at the feet of the individual GM. Goal achieved! So, from the point of view "did design achieve design goals" the answer is unequivocally yes, furthered by the refusal since to clarify anything about stealth. But, from the point of view of "is the system complete, and does it work?" that answer is no. I think it's entirely fair for a user of the system to complain that the design of the stealth rules is bad design -- it certainly doesn't support what they user might want from the stealth rules. And we can see that, repeatedly, in the number of times stealth is brought up with the only answer being 'ask your GM.'