Combine this with the fact that we weren't delivering any artifacts at the end of the sprint, so we didn't have any feedback from stakeholders and weren't really iterating either.
But this is a misconception. Stick to the process (religiously) at first, then assess how it works.
In this case: you did not meet your sprint goals, which either meant you overcommitted (meaning the next sprint you pick up less work), the tasks did not meet the definition of ready (that is, they could not be finished in a single sprint), or you had impediments that weren't solved on time. All of those need to be spoken out loud during a retrospective session, and action undertaken.
Not having any artifacts isn't the issue, you still need to set a moment to stop your work, review what has been done, consider what went well and what could be better, learn and improve.
If the learning is that scrum doesn't work for you - and you can show that you did it properly - then there's other processes that might work better for you, as suggested.
Not that I disagree, but I think it's not modern. In the past, it was probably simply much more accepted that the agency is taken away by authorities, that's just how life is. I think people grew much less tolerant of that recently (which honestly I think is a good development), and more willing to question authorities in general. The hate part then comes from nostalgia.
Frankly, this reeks of empty cynicism and we can do better than that around here.
Your experience is also far from universal. In my previous company I was part of the leadership core and not only did teams have agency to decide what process to use, we were actively encouraging teams to consider alternatives since our practices had become pretty frozen over time (old habits, etc).
Maybe your problem is you just found yourself at shitty companies. The world is a big one out there.
The problem with Agile in general is that it can easily be twisted around to make anything you want. A great team doesn't need agile methods, but it can use them and still be great, and possibly even get some improvement with careful use. Agile intended to fix organizations but organizations don't want to be fixed, and certainly not by a bunch of software people...
But there’s no such thing as “one big rolling sprint” though. If it’s “one big rolling…” then it can’t be a sprint. It’s like dehydrated water. It’s conceptually incoherent.
To untangle the wording of this, when you say your process became “one big rolling sprint”, what you’re actually saying is that you stopped using sprints, aren’t you?
The only reason I'm posting this is because we have had similar things happen in almost every attempt at using sprints. They're just not suited for any sort of formal/business context where you don't have absolute and frankly religious buy-in to the concept.
A sprint is a discrete period of time in which discrete software development tasks happen. A “rolling sprint” is conceptually void. You can’t have a discrete period of time that lasts indefinitely any more than you can have dehydrated water. The “rolling” part and the “sprint” part are mutually exclusive.
I’m not even saying that they weren’t “doing real Agile” – I’m pointing out that what is being described has literally no meaning at all. You can’t be good or bad at it because it’s a meaningless term.