Hi Mike, JC, all,
I remember wondering about similar things when just starting with Nina's books - like when she says first that there is no self that can control and direct dhammas like sati or panna, and then saying in the next paragraph that we should study and be mindful. One of the helpful things to understand was that these are two ways of speaking about things - ultimate and conventional, which are often employed in works on abhidhamma.
For example, when talking on the ultimate level of a single citta with its cetasikas, there's no point really talking about people, methods, meditation, doing something specific, etc, because this citta lasts for a nanosecond or so, and then disappears forever, and the only thing that can be said about it is that it was accompanied by certain cetasikas, and that's about it. And of course, this citta cannot be taken for any kind of a self, because its arising was conditioned by the preceding citta which was just as short, etc. So, it's just pointless to talk about any control, methods, or self, on the ultimate level (which is why I love studying abhidhamma - understanding anatta and anicca comes so naturally from it). On the conventional level though, sure, it can be said that people need to study and be mindful, but I feel this is only due to necessities of language because abhidhamma generally focuses on the ultimate level.
Regarding "no method" approach, Nina and A.Sujin's students follow dry insight approach, so I don’t see much point arguing with them about meditation. I think there is even a sutta which says something like - if you are a samatha student and you are interested in insight, then go talk to people who are good at insight. And I feel that A.Sujin's students can offer a lot on insight. As I understand it, insight is all about being able to verify in practice the ultimate level of things - citta and it's kusala/akusala cetasikas, rupas, and finally nibbana.
Regarding criticism of certain methods on DSG, I found that Nina usually tries to draw attention to the kind of citta at the present moment - is it akusala or kusala, rather than getting drawn into speculative arguments about certain teachers/methods. I mean, regardless of what particular method one is following (even if it's a no-method), the success of the practice at the moment will be determined by the kind of the citta at the moment. Kusala is kusala, and akusala is akusala no matter whose teachings one is following.
Anyway, these are just my observations.