[rpd] Writing tools

[Mike Burns]

Hi Rob,

Yes, the language is a clear tell of AI  usage, but flowery language alone is not swamping the list.
I don't want to hijack the AS-SET discussion, so thank you for the new subject line.

Now, sometimes  and unfortunately, I can use vague and flowery language myself, so I would advise you to treat the AI stuff like the human stuff.
Ignore it if it's too vague or flowery to serve as a good argument, and you have clearly laid out the two arguments in your last two lines.
Hopefully the list will show judgement and treat clear and concise arguments better than vague ones.
And then the AI posts, if they want to be successful, will avoid the purple prose.

Regards,

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Evans <internetplumber at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 10:41 AM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Writing tools

Mike, all

> But unless there is an attempt by an individual to swamp the list, the posts should be treated as if written by the poster, that is like every other post.

As someone with no hats to wear, but an occasional interest in global address policy.

One of the challenges I've found reading the list traffic over the last few days has been that some of the emails generated using 'writing tools' can appear vague and flowery[1].  It can be difficult to debate a point when it's almost impossible to fathom what point is being made.

I fully appreciate that having a discussion take place in English when that is, at best, the second language of many of the participants means that using tools to translate the discussion can be invaluable for having an inclusive discussion, but I wonder if it is also possible to ask the tools to be more concise as part of whatever prompt is being used?

>From what I can see, the major objections relating to the hierarchical AS-SET naming are:
  - The solution isn't perfect and doesn't state its limitations.
  - This is an overreach of the RIR into something that doesn't need policy.

Cheers,
Rob

[1] Google AI helpfully describes flowery language as "Flowery language—often called purple prose—is writing or speech that is overly ornate, intricate, and packed with decorative adjectives."