So, just to clarify, you've interpreted my statement about giving players a chance to better themselves, as "git gud" ?
I'm guessing your comments are coming from a difference in meta. This dinosaur deck you described sounds like a linear battle cruiser deck. This sounds fun, but with the people I play against, your deck just wouldn't exist.
Per your "fake anaolgy" comment, think about it this way; we are talking about effects that try to remove an opponents commander permenatly. If you haven't played against a bunch of efficient theft effects with backup, then I'm envious of your meta. This is common at our tables and can cause some of the best pivotal decisions in a game.
Sure very color can cast a spell to destroy an enchantment or their own stolen commander, but what if they don't already have the answer in hand, or it doesn't resolve? If you want to explore this, then we have to consider the odds of finding the correct answer in a 99 card deck. How many krosan grips do you run? Maybe you have to tutor for a specific answer. Maybe the avaliable answer cards are so small in number out of your 99 that we might as well just draw our commander?
Another thing to think about is the likelyhood of a resolving answer impacting the actual owner more than it should. In a scenario where a mono-red deck has its commander stolen by a treachery, if the blue player has any counter backup, the red player is basically out of options. The blue player might even let something like oblivion stone resolve because sure it will blow up treachery, but the mono-red player is likely nuking more of their own permenants they've cast up till then as well.
There are infinite tempo scenarios where a theft effect can take over the game while the blue player hordes card advantage just waiting for the thefted effect to be dealt with. If you haven't been in a game where a single gilded drake/bribery/treachery has stolen the game, then I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Back to the tuck analogy - I've been giving examples of how theft can often be better than tuck. There are fewer tuck cards than theft options. Not all tuck cards will work on all commanders. The odds of finding the random tuck spell at the appropriate time is actually very low. In multiplayer the entire interaction only involves two players, so there is card disadvantage and politics to consider. And if the tuck spell is found at the wrong time, it's just a highly-situational usually overcosted card in hand. At least hinder can be pitched to force of will.
Now I do respect your dinosaur deck and how you choose to play and what you want from this format. So try to do the same for me - I enjoy assembling puzzle decks, intricate combos and storm. My friends offer fairly competitive matchups that make me think. Combat damage math is rarely the hardest decision point in a turn for us.
Learning how and when to play around threats is an important part of becoming a better player and deck builder.
If the potential of having your commander tucked away completely disabled your deck, then that's a fantastic opportunity to learn. You either consider deck changes (answers to tuck effects), playstyle changes (running your commander in to open mana), or risk assessment changes (odds of them having tuck vs upside if your commander does whatever it does).
Tuck was never a guarenteed answer and was just another option for opponents to answer a commander. Treachery and gilded drake effects can also deal with a commander in ways that some decks can't react to, yet these cards will never be banned. And if the opponent running those theft effects decides to pack a few counter spells, then a stolen commander can be impossible to get back, while tucked commander can still be found.
Not all tuck spells are guaranteed to work - condemn won't stop combo engines like gitrog, and hinder is a 3cmc counter which is too slow for most competitive metas where problem commanders tend to linger. Not to mention the odds of finding the 1/99 pseudo answer while the problem commander is always avaliable in the command zone.
Honestly how much of an issue was that to begin with?
None of those cards are played extensively in this format, past the occasional Kozilek deck itself. With access to talismans and filter+pain lands I see zero reason why the introduction of colorless-specific mana warranted a complete rule deletion.
One of the basic principles of the format is a color restriction based on the commander of choice. Being able to make off-color mana distorts that basic flavor, and while it's not something that can be abused, it's a random rule change that didn't actually need to happen.
I always played decks that were vulnerable to tuck, but honestly felt that when they removed the tuck option that they were kinda dumbing down the format. I understand the desire to lower complexity for new players, but I still feel like removing problematic commanders semi-permenatly was necessary and encouraged better deck/win-con building.
On that same page I also strongly dislike the rule adjustment where non-commander specific color can now be produced in a deck. That was a very flavorful rule and I still can't fathom why on earth it was changed.
When cards are needlessly banned or rules are needlessly changed, when the format is completely healthy, it just feels like someone is just reminding us that they have some influence over the format. It's silly.
There is a grey area between casually-competative and cEDH, where stronger and more oppressive commanders can warp a fairly casual table, and the best answer would be to tuck them.