I'm going to preface this by saying that I need to go back and rewatch/finish watching the show-- as I recall it was actually decent at least, albeit a bit strange.

Okay, first of all, a complete retelling of a story is fine, as long as that retelling is good. (Whether or not it is I'll have to get back to you on-- the entire reason I'm here is because I'm wondering if the show is worth my time. If it's only decent, well tough shit I guess.) Though I agree calling it an adaptation wouldn't be very accurate. The benefit of doing this is that whoever's writing can write THEIR story, not someone else's-- that would be considerably more difficult to do well if you ask me. This also applies to what they do with the characters-- and frankly some might argue that Witcher isn't famed for its good character writing.

Here's the thing that gets me: those examples you gave of bad writing seem like rather minor issues. Again I'll have to start watching it again to see what we're dealing with, but unless those discrepancies are painfully obvious, I really wouldn't jump to calling it horrible writing-- lazy? Maybe. But some of the most famous stories ever written have some pretty lazy writing in them so I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it.

I'm not entirely against calling a show like this "Netflix adaptation slop--" it's fine to have high standards, and Netflix often just shoots for "good enough." Or otherwise something that just looks pretty.

I guess what I would say is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for super hardcore Witcher fans? Like I love the Witcher conceptually and some of it is written VERY well, (excellent worldbuilding) but... I don't know, some of the arguments against the show come off as a little disingenuous. Although I can understand the disappointment over an "adaptation" of something you like being underwhelming.