[rpd] Writing tools

[Nonjabulo Sphilile]

Hi Mike,

Your clarification does not remove my concern. Calling AI-assisted
participation a potential “DDoS” still frames the tool as suspicious before
any disruptive conduct has occurred.

Existing rules already address flooding. Moderation should respond to
proven behaviour, not hypothetical assumptions about technology. Otherwise,
process management becomes gatekeeping.

Regards,
Nonjabulo

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 18:14 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> 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/a9cb3185/attachment.html>