Luckily, there is an easy solution to avoid all this: just don't play in the tournament at all.
Not playing is what I'll do if the rules aren't to my satisfaction. On the other hand, I like money and the rules are close enough to being good enough for me that I thought I'd bring this stuff up. Even drsteelhammer said himself in this thread that some of section 8 still wasn't decided yet. I think all of the suggestions I've actually made are good changes to the rules, and I think a lot of the questions I've asked are things that deserved clarification.
It's a little baffling to me that you seem to be arguing that it's better to turn people away from the tournament than it is to write a better rule set. I thought the whole point of this tournament was to draw people in and get them to buy subscriptions so more people would be the main goal.
In my experience running a total of 8 Dominion tournaments in my life, I've found it's really helpful to write the rules before the tournament starts, and have the rules be really good. The benefit is that when these situations come up (as is likely to happen given an entry pool this large), it's transparent and clear that the people in charge aren't putting personal bias into their decision because the decision was made before we knew which people were involved. It's a much better situation for everyone involved, but most of all, the organizers themselves!
I will play for fun and I trust in the organizers to do their best, so I accept all their rulings in advance.
(Maybe that's actually something which could be added to the rules: "All decisions of organizers are final and cannot be appealed.")
There are people here using the terms "organizers" and "moderators" -- I want to make sure I'm clearly defining who I'm talking about when I use these words. If this is not what other people mean, then please correct me.
Organizers/TO - drsteelhammer
Moderators - Deadlock39 and irrationalE (whatever is on the list at the bottom of this post
There is a statement in the rules to the effect of what you said about the moderators
11.2 If there is a conflict, please contact your moderator, who will have the final say on the issue.
And I trust the moderators. On the other hand, I do not trust drsteelhammer. I'm not going to get into the details but the way the rules are written, drsteelhammer doesn't actually have any authority other than the fact that he writes the rules (which is a good thing, both for my personal preference, plus it's good practice). If he writes rules that are good enough for me then I'll join, and in a way I'm helping him because if he writes rules that are good enough for me, I'd say they're probably good enough for anyone -- that way he ends up with the best rules! Everyone wins!
On the other hand, changing the rules after the tournament starts is a huge no-no for me, so having vague rules that give the organizer authority to make "judgment calls" is not something I'm OK with (this is the moderators' job), particularly when I don't trust the judgment of the organizer. With well-written rules, though, this situation should not come up.
With regard to streaming/spectating in particular, it's a sensitive subject to me so while it may not seem important to everyone, the contents of section 8 of the rules are extremely important to me. In fact, whether or not I participate in the tournament hinges on what those are, because everything else out there seems good enough.