Tree stumps removed along with what seemed like a fair sized forrest. Now to find a modelling use for all these pieces of lumber.
It's all very well to accept something well short of perfection provided the shortcomings are clearly spelt out. I hope that it is made clear in published work that most of my models are built using this approach. A good examples are the dynamic diving submarines I've designed, with no ballast tanks or sophisticated control systems their cost is modest but they still can provide a lot of operating pleasure.
As for accepting something which is flawed, especially if it purports to have been made/designed/ performed by people claiming to be "professionals" then this, I feel, is asking too much. If presented with poor quality or service then you ought to complain, if no satesfactory answer is forthcoming then you can start with questions. But, it is only fair to do this if you are willing to praise good quality or service.
Yes, it's far simpler to take what you are given and keep your head down. But this only drives the average standards down as no one has any inducement to do more than average. I'm reminded of a consultant who was paid by a large national organisation to vet all the ideas and suggestions that they received. He quickly worked out that 90% of the ideas were none starters and so rejected all of the suggestions sent to him. Using the sort of logic that might appeal to Bankers, he claimed that the generous fee received for his efforts was worth the 90% success rate he achieved. But, to my simple mind I'd say he had a 100% failure rate.
GlynnG