OFB-8

The discussion is interesting... Throughout my entire career as a player (and even before that), I've always adhered to a strict principle: to distinguish between a player, a chatter, and a judge. When I'm playing or just chatting, I can swear, troll, insult, and generally engage in demagoguery, arguments, and other inappropriate behavior. But when I'm acting as a judge, my rhetoric and behavior change – my posts become serious, logically consistent, respectful to the other person, and as non-confrontational as the situation allows. Without any jokes, sarcasm, whining, ambiguous hints, or condescending tones, etc. When Rebel/Cobra are stirring up trouble, it's acceptable – they're defending their interests as best they can. But when members of the administration start doing it, it's disappointing.

Added 3 minutes ago

But they promised 7, and 7 were eliminated.

In the topic header, I see 9 players who made it through. You can say anything, but knowing that the passing score is 6.5, not 7.0, objectively changes the tournament strategy for players who are "close to passing."

Added 8 minutes ago
Here are the exact quotes:

7 players will advance to the final stage.

There will be 7 winners, and therefore 7 players will advance to the final bracket. The winner is determined by the number of points scored. In the event of a tie, additional criteria apply: 1) Buchholz coefficient 2) Head-to-head record

The same thought is repeated twice, clearly and unambiguously, with no "ifs" or "at least 7" – to make it clear to everyone that there will be no easy way through, and no one is going to twist the rules. After that, the position of "our rules, we can change them if we want" looks pathetic. If you want to change something, first make sure that no one will object; the administration has no moral right to speak from a position of power in this matter.