Not addressed to anyone in particular but it all depends on what one is trying to do.
From the living history & reenactment point of view, one is either trying to experience or replicate a past time, for either personal or public enlightenment. Whether this is done very well or not so well varies from event to event and person to person, but since the goal is dealing with what was, and not what might have been, documentation (which includes not just a record written in period but studies of artifacts), is the only way to know that the object or practice existed in period.
From the rondy point of view, (and I generalize because there is an overlap between those who attend rondys & reenactments), historical accuracy is less important than enjoying a break from the modern world. The emphasis is on a more primitive experience than we live today and "could have been" is often as not accepted. As long as materials & techniques from the past are used, objects are not overly questioned.
There is nothing wrong with either approach. Both approaches and the events that cater to them can be a lot of fun. What is wrong is when someone from one school of thought tries to force their approach on others while at an event. If at a rondy, one does not reproach others for their lack of historical accuracy. If trying to participate in a juried event, one does not try to force acceptance of undocumented gear. No one is required to go to an event. It doesn't make any difference whether one considers the guidelines/rules too tight or too loose - to attend is to gracefully accept the standards for that event.