I felt kinda strongly about this topic so I made an account for basically just this purpose and I just want to reiterate some of the things others have said.

As a disclaimer, I will approach this from an intuitive standpoint because I think that stephen does a more comprehensive job of doing the straight logical standpoint than I have the time for these days and (although I personally enjoy that type of view than others) because I think that people generally feel that the intuitive standpoint is more easy to relate to and read.

To begin with so you know where I stand, I disagree with the restriction.

My reasons are as follows: firstly, gifts is not too powerful; secondly, gifts is more fun than other decks.

1: I haven't seen a good argument for Gifts being too powerful.  I feel that power must be considered with respect for peers, and I don't think that it has been too powerful in comparison to the things that other decks can do.  One serious issue is that people generally feel that they lose a lot to gifts, and that gifts decks do too well.  Someone mentioned in reply to the numbers shown by stephen that the fact that it does so well despite the low percentages shows that it is too good.  But the problem here is that it is very difficult to distinguish whether a deck is too good or a person is good.  How can we distinguish between a good deck in a good player's hands versus a deck that is too good in a good player's hands?  Clearly, (from a format I'm familiar with) affinity and skullclamp were an example where something was simply too good because poor players were doing well simply on the basis of the deck.  However, I argue that mostly any drain deck, or deck of the same variety, takes a considerable amount of skill to play.  For example, recognizing what are the true threats etc. 

Another thing is that Feinstein, who through a friend of mine I have some respect for, suffers from a problem here which is somewhat similar to what I have outlined.  I think that good players generally like decks with drain and do well with them.  It is not surprising that Feinstein, a good player, will play against these types of decks because of the way the swiss system works.  Good players eventually play against other good players.  Consequently, if good players are playing gifts and winning with them, it is not unexpected that Feinstein would play against them, playing fish and winning with it. 

If I play against a large number of fish decks, its not because those decks are too powerful, but because the good players enjoy it.

Sure, at my (and possibly yours) metagame gifts is a dominant good deck.  But is that just because the best player thinks its the most fun?  Does that player do well with other decks?  At my metagame, the best players do well with gifts, but also with other decks if they decide to play them (not often but sometimes). 

While I remember, I don't understand the allusions to gifts to fof or intuition.  Particular intuition.  I can see why you would, but they aren't the same card.  The restriction on choices makes the cards entirely different.  Intuition is more powerful because it can be gifts-esque getting recoup lotus will or whatever but it can also demonic tutor in a way that gifts can not.  and this at more mana.

2:  I expect some of you to have blown your top to the first mention of this but I reiterate: gifts is more fun.

Why do I think so?  It is because it exemplifies everything I like about the game.  Firstly, it involves choices.  Many choices.  Choices ahoy!  I dun do like 'em choices.  During gameplay, the question "what do I get?" is somewhat overlooked.  Certainly, the cards you get to win are basically set in stone, but you can't always just go for it, what do you get otherwise?  Then, what can the opponent give you? Sure, when the gifts player (I'm gonna go ahead and call her Ms. S) casts gifts for the nuts/game win, then there is little that the opponent (Lets call her Ms. F) can do.  However, this is certainly not unique to gifts!  rather, I would argue that EVERY deck (with the exception of fish as a deck that is reactive in development and not proactive) is the same way in type one.  Every deck wins when it does its nuts.  That is part of what Type 1 is.  However, gifts takes more choices to set up.  Taking the trinisphere argument, the "setup" for trinisphere is playing workshop and trinisphere.  A two card combo that, short of FoW, can't be dealt with.  Or, more currently, Ichorid takes the "setup" of mulling to bazzaar as almost quite literally the only choice available.  Oath w/orchard, long/teps variants w/rit rit rit tendrils and so forth.  Moreover, as gifts allows for more choices in deckbuilding, allowing for choices in silver bullets and interesting combinations.  For choices, gifts is one of the best cards ever printed in magic history.

gifts decks don't generally kill on turn 1.  or 2.  or 3.  They usually take some time to get going.  Leading to more interaction between the players.  How fun is it to be under the sphere?  or to watch your opponent mull to 3 so she can get bazaar.  I die a little inside every time I see that because I know that war (or blackjack if you prefer as an example) is about to be played.  Even though I have made a deck choice that incites interaction between players, it'll just be me and my hand for this round.

Some complaints have been lodged already in this thread about gifts being unfun.  I am curious as to what you consider to be fun.  every time I play against ichorid or workshops I feel like my opponent makes no choices whatsoever and just plays with the top card of their graveyard/library (why I prefer war as an analogy).  My favorite matches are grueling showdowns between myself and fish or gifts or drain decks.  You may lose, but you have spent your time playing magic, which is what I'm there to do.

There you have some of my reasons for keeping gifts.  I hope that some of you found it interesting or new and I truly hope that I persuaded some of you.  I agree with Stephen that this is a simple case of whether gifts should or should not be restricted and I hope to have added something new to the argument against.

And for those of you who think that DCI won't listen to anything I say so this is all pointless, such a defeatist attitude is what leads to poor decisions running any type of government (which is what the DCI realistically is).  The government should (and I believe DCI makes an effort to) listen to the citizens and take it under consideration.  The questions by Forsythe is an exellent example of this.  I think they made a poor choice of restricting gifts and I hope they listen to the community here and are convinced to unrestrict it.

Thank you for reading my post,
Viking Potes