So, measuring distance in 'the average length of these two sticks' and time in 'how long it takes half of a stationary sample of this radioactive element to decay', various observers get radically different values for the speed of light.
That's without any changes to the current world, if the sticks are moving.
Then I suggest that your observers not go out of their way to be stupid. Put everything in the same frame of reference first.
Just because you can play nitwit games with picking silly units of measurement doesn't mean you have to. To do particle physics, for example, you often have to calculate away the frame-of-reference effects; so what? Just put everything in a convenient frame and then be consistent about it. You seem to be assuming some kind of idiot-savant observer who is informed enough to deliberately pick a unit that's vulnerable to frame-of-reference effects, but not bright enough to calculate what the effect is.
New Salt Compounds Challenge the Foundation of Chemistry
The title is overblown (it depends on what you think the foundation is), but get a load of this:
And here's the philosophical bit:
The obvious example of local truth is relativistic effects being pretty much invisible over the durations and distances that are normal for people, but there's also that the surface of the earth is near enough to flat for many human purposes.
Any suggestions for other truths which could turn out to be local?