For me "the full game" just doesn't mean what it does to you guys. Possession got published, e.g. Enchant didn't (it's some random outtake from Alchemy). It's not somehow an incomplete game without Enchant, and it wouldn't be without Possession. Possession shouldn't have been published, Enchant didn't seem to have enough merit and wasn't. But it could have been vice-versa; Possession had rules issues and wouldn't have made the set if there'd been more time, and I can imagine deciding at the last minute to do Enchant instead. For me there's just no sense in which Possession should be forced on serious players in a way that Enchant shouldn't be. The argument is that Possession did actually get published, but that was a mistake, why enshrine mistakes. Chancellor etc. got published and you aren't playing with those online; I got to fix some mistakes.
I pushed for the banned list feature and am a fan. I didn't push for liked/disliked lists but they're fine. IRL people use banned lists constantly - you deal out the cards, your friend says "oh let's not play with Witch" or "oh we should have a village" and I mean they're your friend, so you're friendly. People leave out cards they don't like because they want to have more fun. People playing online also want to have more fun.
When you have a banned list, of course there will be cards you like that don't show up so much - you like Swindler, lots of people don't, only sometimes are you up against someone who didn't ban it and then it still may not show up. The suffering you experience from not getting to play with Swindler as much is just so overshadowed by the suffering of the other people if you got to force it on them. The joy someone might get from forcing their opponents to play with Possession is nothing next to the joy of people not having to play with Possession.
So, I am not sympathetic to anti-banned-list sentiments. Imagine your opponent is a friend; man, making them play with whatever card they hate is no way to be friendly.