Harrington on Cash Vol 1 has a few applicable observations. Pages 126-128 are basically making the point that the effective stack size is making one style of play optimal. Fnord has often made the same observation I think regarding 2-street poker, 3-street poker etc.

Ed Miller's Getting Started in Hold'em is making the point that a starting hand can have pre-flop equity value and post-flop strategic advantages, where shorter stacks favour pre-flop equity and larger stacks favour post-flop strategic advantages.

Harrington I think it was who made the just as relevant point to this discussion that many card rooms limit the maximum buyin. Like a lot of online card rooms limit the max buying to 100bb. The way he describes it true deep stack play seems to begin at 100bb and get really fun at 250-300bb. The relevant point here is that deeper stacks allows players to leverage more comprehensive skills. Card rooms limit the max buyin to take some advantage away from the most skilled players and level the playing field to give less skilled players a chance.

A similarly relevant point is my own and this: You can't play deep stacks without knowing how to play short stacked, but you can play short stacked without knowing how to play deep stacked. The important part of that statement is not the latter but the former.

Personally, I favour deep stack play because the learning opportunities are richer, but spending a little time short stacking for educational purposes is still on my to-do list. I think that if I spend some time playing short stacked it will give me a better understanding of how short stacked play can work and make it easier for me to counter.

I don't think short stacks should be banned, but I wouldn't be opposed to having the range of possible buyins made more narrow by raising the minimum buyin. It creates a more even playing field where everyone is playing the same style of poker.