I don't have time to type out a fully detailed response at the moment, but I'll try to hit on one point.
The SBR's charge is to create a rule set that promotes healthy competition. The point Sirlin is making in his article is that oftentimes scrubs complain about a tactic being too cheap when, in reality, it is far from cheap. It is really quite easily avoided or countered at high levels of play. However, when a tactic is discovered that is so powerful that the entire game is literally reduced to using that one tactic (thus ending all public interest in that game), then we start entering the realm of "too cheap". The SBR never bans something without careful analysis.
In fact, you may find this interesting: when the SBR stumbles upon a tactic that might be "too cheap", the first thing they tell everyone to do is to use that very technique as much as they can. Everyone is literally instructed to just "go and win tournaments using this cheap tactic". This is a beautiful system because 9 times out of 10, it just doesn't work. The cheap tactic is overcome by something the SBR did not foresee. When M2K comes out and complains about a certain tactic, it is not because it is the one thing holding him back from his 1st place prize. Quite the opposite. M2K's opinion is very important to the community because he is a top player (taking 1st place almost 100% of the time). M2K complaining about planking or whatever else is a red flag that the technique needs to be analyzed because if our top players cannot escape the cheap tactic, chances are no one else can either.