[rpd] Writing tools

[Nonjabulo Sphilile]

Dear colleagues,

Hendrik, asking an AI system to label participants as astroturfers is not
evidence. It is an automated opinion about writing style. The phrase
“humans with brains” also adds nothing to the policy discussion. It simply
turns disagreement into personal contempt.

Mike, your distinction between ordinary AI-assisted writing and intentional
list flooding is reasonable. Actual flooding should be handled under
existing rules, regardless of the tool used. But a “+1” should not become
compulsory. Participants may agree on the same issue while reaching it from
different experiences or concerns. The co-chairs can consolidate repeated
arguments without erasing the people raising them.

Ben, the football comparison may be amusing, but the PDP is not a match in
which familiar players, referees, or crowd preference determine legitimacy.
Participation provides evidence and objection. It does not create authority
over other participants.

The correct approach is straightforward: moderate proven disruptive
conduct, group genuinely repetitive points, and assess each distinct policy
concern on its merits. Do not turn speculation about tools, identity, or
familiarity into a gatekeeping mechanism.

Regards,
Nonjabulo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/99073b8b/attachment.html>