I don't think anyone is blind to some of the difficulties in Rime. I have yet to see anyone say it's perfect.
And the closest to a "shite DM" I can recall was my response to a fictitious dialogue between a DM and players. And even then, I specifically stated I was not calling out the person who wrote it as a bad DM. In fact, I said it was more than likely he was good.
But a person is allowed to argue that you see a bunch of flaws and others have had nothing but positive experiences, right? A person is allowed to look at your supposed terrible editing and say they see no such thing, because in their experience (or in my case experiences) there were no editing glitches. And a person is allowed to say, perhaps the difference is any multitude of things: table chemistry, DM prep, problematic player, player focus, DM focus. Right? Can a person say those, or are they just "blind?"