Keeping games available is as much of a decision as limiting them. Why do you think picking the former option requires extensive research and the latter doesn't?
Number two even if there weren't, by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research.
A.k.a. we don't know what long term ramifications may be caused by extensive winking, so will be restricting to the amount of winking you can perform to 50 winks per day.
The parent comment suggested there isn't, and the reply I gave was modulo this assumption. If you say there is extensive research, give it to the parent comment.
> by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research
You do a strawman argument here, your interpretation of my argument is self-servingly absurd.
The parent comment wanted to discard one of the alternatives because there's too little research. I objected saying that if there's not enough research, this makes the two alternatives equally favorable (not that it strengthens the other alternative!).