#format philosophy

I'm happy to share my thoughts on the subject, sure.

Golos was banned because it was format warping. It wasn't warping gameplay around itself like other cards did (e.g. Primeval Titan, Prophet of Kruphix) but rather warping deck construction and diversity around itself.

Golos was a colorless commander with a powerful ETB tutor ability that also gave you access to all five colours and and a way to spend late-game mana. It was just too generically good and was becoming the default commander for a lot of the format. Basically any deck that wasn't focused on its commander was likely to be better off running Golos in the command zone without any other changes. Additionally, giving a deck access to all five colors without require any of those colors to cast is also not healthy for the format.

In light of this, Golos was banned in order to encourage deck and deckbuilding diversity.

Here's the announcement of the banning where you can see exactly what the Rules Committee had to say about it.

In general, I think the format is in a good place overall and that very little needs to change with respect to the ban list. I feel like what the format needs most of all is better communication between players and between the RC and the wider community to better explain their vision and ideals for the format.

If I had to ban something, I would ban cards that create multiple extra turns, such as Time Stretch. Taking a lot of extra turns or just dominating play time in general is rather anti-social and should be discouraged in the format. However, I feel like extra turn decks aren't overwhelming the format and that playgroups are good with allowing or disallowing them as appropriate on their own, so I'm not desperate to see these cards banned.