Seems like a key point of all this is that there's a difference judging whether a rule is fair—i.e., applies equally to everyone and offers no inherent EV advantage to any random individual, agnostic to skill—and whether a rule amplifies skill advantage.
Poker itself is an example of this. It's a fair game, but within that fair game are many parameters that can amplify or dull skill advantage depending on how you set them. Stack depth in NL games is one such parameter, as is choosing NL as a format in the first place. Ante size in limit stud games is another. The poker variant you choose to play is yet another.
The sweet spot for any particular poker gathering depends on the balance you need to strike.
If your players are all relatively close in skill, it doesn't matter very much. Features that amplify skill advantage will make the game more competitive and less gambley, but they won't really hurt anyone too much, since there's isn't much advantage to amplify.
In this case it's a matter of preference.
If there's substantial skill difference among your players, it matters a lot. If you're a skilled, experienced player, and you find yourself at a table where you're the only person who knows what "semi-bluff" means, features like matching the big stack and tough variants (e.g., Scarney) are going to leave you shooting fish in a barrel.
In this case you should lean toward gambley features (because recreational players win by chance) and avoid competitive features, to protect the lower-skilled players.