I suppose there is criticism and there is feedback. Where criticism is of the level of ‘I don’t like this’ (expressed in many forms) with no explanation.
I’ve played tested a few sets of rules - and tried to feedback usefully. Sometimes as a player you just struggle to get a concept in a set of rules - and a fair bit of this is down to prior experience - but also how it is presented. Sometimes in rules there are just omissions - stuff the author and local play testers know so well, they haven’t even spotted it isn’t explicit in the rules (again likely due to prior experience).
Sometimes a set of rules just doesn't work for me - but if the author is happy with how they work - then that is fine - there are plenty of other sets out there to play. Though this can lead to local fragmentation as different people go off to do their own thing.
I’ve written quite a few mods to rules, but only one ruleset (that is only local rules still) and in writing these we attempted a write by committee option, but that rather failed due to too many voices and the difficulty of gathering and discussing areas of disagreement (which were often quite minor).
Man, don't get my friend worked up on playtesting. (: He playtests rules for small "published" companies, and, even though he'll fill out the forms they want, they won't listen to him. I think he was even part of a KS production team, and the designer (the president of the company who hired him) didn't listen to some of his comments.
Hope the ruleset gets posted or published sometime. Whoever is the most motivated might as well publish it *their* way, with credit to the others, and a note that "While we didn't agree completely on the rules, we still wanted the rules published" or something?