[rpd] Writing tools

[Mike Burns]

Hi Nonjablulo,

 

I want to be clear that AI DDos is the same as automated flooding. AI can generate non-duplicative prompts more quickly and easily than anything else, which provide a tool for list-swamping.

What that can do is render the list unusable. 

Note that I do not see that happening in any current conversations.

And as I pointed out, existing procedures can take care of list flooding, whether AI generated or not.

 

I thought I was clear that absent the flooding I called a DDoS, all arguments should be considered on their merits.

I personally don’t care where the argument comes from.

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

From: Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 12:02 PM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Writing tools

 

Dear Mike,

 

The “AI DDoS” analogy is the wrong category. Participants are not packets, and disagreement is not an attack on the process.

 

The list may regulate actual conduct such as automated flooding, impersonation, excessive duplication, or deliberate disruption. It should not infer abuse from writing style or from the use of a drafting tool. A person who reviews, submits, and stands behind a message remains responsible for it.

 

Any guideline must therefore be tool-neutral and based on measurable behaviour. Otherwise process management becomes a mechanism for filtering unfamiliar or inconvenient voices while established participants continue to define what counts as legitimate participation.

 

Rough consensus is not protected by narrowing the room. It is protected by identifying distinct issues, answering them on their merits, and refusing to turn procedural control into institutional mandate.

 

I oppose any rule that treats AI assistance itself as presumptive misconduct.

 

Regards,

Nonjabulo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/faab8042/attachment.html>