Banning for the sake of banning is always a poor excuse. Many players from different communities ask that things be banned without even understanding why. They just think it's overpowered and end it at that when in actuality, very little ever needs to be banned. You run the risk of prematurely banning something versus actually seeing if the game can grow organically from where it's at. You also run the risk of creating arbitrary rules that change the game when it's possible that the game is fine as is, as Mike Z said. In other words, we don't know enough about it. We're watching one single video and are jumping to the conclusion that it needs to be banned. From the hours and hours of tournament Waldstein footage I've seen, not once have I seen anything remotely like that.
@Time: TOs will find ways to fit games into their allocated time slot. The games will be played one way or another. Some TOs are good at it(even finishing well before what they anticipated). Some are bad at it.
@Image: I'm not buying this "image of a fighting game" nonsense. We shouldn't have to curb a game's meta because it won't attract people. If people will look at a few videos and come to the conclusion that they don't want to play that game, it's on them. Not us.
@Interaction: No, it does not. No kind of interaction would imply that the opposing player doesn't get to "play the game", which is almost always exaggerated when brought up, honestly.
I'm for banning something if it stagnates growth. We haven't even seen if that is the case with this infinite.