SBR's recommendations are sort of a "Hey, we think these rules are the best for playing Brawl competitively. Try them out, we bet you guys'll love them!" tip. You might want to play differently, but most of the Smash community enjoys those rules, so no need to bash them on recommendations. After, it doesn't automatically change your Wii's settings to what they say. If the majority in the SBR recommends a conclusion to a problem (like the Items debate, and the MK debate), it's just that: a recommendation.
You can ignore their "tips" and do things as you like. If no one attends your MK-Banned events, it means that the population trusts the SBR's decision on how to make the game a better experience... Not that MK-Banned events are resented by the populace. No one forces you to abide by their recommendations. So many people play Brawl casually, with final smashes, 5 stocks, in Hyrule Castle, and they're just fine playing without the recommendations. That's proof enough that their voice doesn't hold enough weight to revolutionize the community.
People abide by what they say because the group was created before, and was admired by all to be the "Best of the Best" in all aspects of the game. They still abide by what they say because they still feel that they're the best at some things others are not, INCLUDING sharing ideas and debating with facts. If they're not as respectable towards the community as before (see Inui), well that's the now, and the other was the then. Not everyone is likeable, but they must have been invited into the SBR for a reason. What good is a board ful of top players, if they all believe their characters are the best and we get a tier list based entirely on opinions? You don't see Xyro saying Samus should be top, high or mid tier because the will to push personal bias aside prevents things like I said from happening, which is put characters where they don't belong in a tier list. AND THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE of what people outside the SBR tend to do, they put characters on how they "feel" like they should be in the tier list, with their characters usually higher up than what the list says...
Stop jumping to conclusions with unfounded data. Who's to say they voted AntiBan because the game would be better, healthier, worse, or simply because MK was "fun"? If a person or two had personal bias in the SBR, it doesn't mean the rest are the same AND there's no proof you can pin on anyone that they voted simply for the laughs of seeing the community worsen.
EDIT: And for those of you that think the SBR fuels the community's need to win tourneys with tier lists... Even if the SBR didn't exist, the obvious choice is MK for best character, Snake for second, and whoever the trend falls on is because of what character beats the best player. Diddy, Wario, IC's and Snake are all winners of the "I beat M2K's MK in a set, so I can do it!" awards. I don't think the SBR planned on THOSE matches happening. ADHD went close with Diddy against M2K's MK, and everyone went like "PRO! Diddy's GOOD!" and reinforced their already grounded beliefs due to NinjaLink's matches. Fiction's victory was a reassurance also of Reflex's Wario and its close encounter with M2K's MK. Ally was the last bolt that fastened the structural truth that Snake is the 2nd best character in the game by constantly beating M2K in tourneys. IC's already were notorious for being a match against MK, but when lain beat M2K's MK in a match, everyone exploded with love towards that character. The fact that these trends were fortified after the matches those people won, only show that the SBR's tier lists aren't a direct influence on the community, although it DOES have some. The actual influence comes from tourney matches and HYPE!.