> I don't agree that they have NO idea of what slop is.

There's no way for anyone reading their rules to know if their projects are slop. It's full of "mostly" and "significantly". That's virtually guaranteed to boil down to "we don't like it".

So "they didn't know how to define it" is about the most charitable interpretation I can muster. Alternative interpretations, such as "the vagueness is a feature since it enables selective enforcement", are also available, and they only get more and more uncharitable.

> Also your claim "they DON'T WANT to have to define" is unproofable.

Had they wanted to define it, they would have done so.

> Neither you nor me have any insight into what "they" want or don't want.

I have insight into their actions, and I'm perfectly capable of inferring context and motives from them.

> I'd even argue that precision in such a definition isn't necessary.

None of this is strictly necessary. Nevertheless, it is desirable that things be precisely defined so that people can know where they stand. Depending on the exact definition, I may or may not be welcome. Therefore I'm not going back there without a precise definition.