@wappla This is a straw man at best, projection at the worst...
There are legitimate reasons to want a Gush restriction and/or a Mentor restriction based on diversity, your slippery slope notwithstanding. You dismissing that as a goal of the format does not matter much when Wizards has repeatedly cited it as the basis for multiple restrictions and the B&R website literally mentions it in the first sentence.
@ChubbyRain Show me where the case against Gush has been articulated, because I haven't seen it.
Efficient spells are what make less efficient spells less efficient. Should we keep restricting cards until you can play Cancel and Doom Blade? Force of Will and Swords to Plowshares cast a shadow over the entire meta.
You should explain why you apply this bizarre efficiency test to some cards and not others.
You should explain why turn three Gush is "too good" for a format where turn one Oath of Druids, Monastery Mentor, Paradoxical Outcome, and Trinisphere are all plausible plays.
[Drain and Gush] are different cards but good for the same reason [mana generation added to an otherwise desirable effect]. Why do you valorize one and demonize the other?
Quoting Rich Shay, or anyone else
Quoting myself, two weeks ago
It also seems to encourage playing lots of free artifact mana, Time Vault and Voltaic Key, Paradoxical Outcome, a bunch of tutors, and Tinker and Blightsteel Colossus. How do those things create a better format than Young Pyromancer and Monastery Mentor?
I also don't understand how you have come to attach a personality trait like "greed" to the Gush mana base. Why is the Gush mana base "greedy?" People play the amount of mana they believe their deck needs to win games of Magic. That's as true in Gush decks as it is in Standstill or Thirst decks. There's nothing greedy about it.
Can you explain how a Gush metagame leads to a "race-to-the-bottom" and a Thirst-Paradoxical metagame doesn't?
Additionally, if paying mana for draw spells is what you celebrate about Thirst and distinguishes it from the evil Gush, shouldn't you be upset that the Thirst decks now lean so heavily on Paradoxical Outcome?
Edit: In yesterdays event, Paradoxical/Thirst decks played fewer lands than Gush decks did before restriction. Could you clarify your definition of "greed?"
Quoting Rich Shay, or anyone else
crickets, once more
As far as I have seen, the only substantive thinking on Gush's restriction has been presented to make a case for the card, while the anti-Gush side has said very little besides Gush decks being too good-- which we know is false-- and Gush being too good-- which is irrelevant the same way Force of Will (poor Cancel!) and Volcanic Island (makes other UR duals unplayable!) being too good is irrelevant.
I wrote a very long article in defense of Gush an entire year ago and my argumentation has been consistent ever since.
Your counterpoint about diversity would be relevant if the same proponents for Gush's restriction, namely Mr Shay, haven't been celebrating the results of the tournaments since, which thanks to Ryan and your consistent efforts we know haven't been any more diverse. The diversity argument fails (@Smmenen has been putting your data to better use than anyone else) yet the anti-Gush crowd celebrates the current format. It's dishonest for them to cite diversity as a reason for Gush's restriction. Consistently substantive points have been made each week on the basis of your tournament data, they just have been against the restriction rather than for it. Of course, data-backed arguments before the announcement were also against restriction. Evidence has always been on one side of this thing.
The reason these threads go long every week is partly because a lot of people chime in to say nothing constructive, but also because the only material counterargument those in favor of Gush have been facing is "Wait and see, metagame evolution takes time." When that is the strongest argument the anti-Gush side can muster, it should be obvious why each week's data merits discussion.
Rich Shay says over and over again that Gush is bad. He never explains why. He says it doesn't cost mana but refuses explain why that is bad. In the absence of a clear explanation for why Gush is bad, in the absence of increased diversity, in the presence of weekly reminders of both of these absences, there isn't an argument against Gush other than "Well I once enjoyed Control Slaver."
Now, it's no one's obligation to make a real argument. Maybe I don't deserve responses to my questions, but it then becomes bizarre for you to criticize me for projection. We can sit here and accept the DCI's bullshit, chalk up Gush's and Gitaxian Probe pruning as loudly expressed personal preference, and continue on our way with no expectation that restrictions have rhyme or reason. As @diophan said the day of, "complain and ye shall receive." That is what Vintage is. As I wrote a few posts up, the reason this is contentious is because many of us believe it should be otherwise.
It's dishonest for people to both claim Gush deserved restriction and that Vintage isn't an arbitrarily governed format without resolving that contradiction. You can believe Gush and Gitaxian Probe deserved restriction or you can believe the restricted list should have a higher standard than arbitrary taste, but nothing I've seen or read suggests you can believe both without being a hypocrite.