[rpd] Writing tools

[Nonjabulo Sphilile]

Dear Hendrik,

This message is personal abuse, not policy analysis.

Claude is not an auditor, and its opinion about writing style does not
prove astroturfing, identity misuse, or disruptive conduct. If you believe
a specific rule has been breached, identify the conduct and place the
evidence before the co-chairs. Insults about students, intelligence,
“garbage,” or imaginary controllers prove nothing.

New participants are not apprentices who require permission from older
participants to speak. Experience may add weight to evidence, but it does
not create authority over other people’s participation. A mailing list is
not a hierarchy in which familiar operators decide whose voice is
legitimate.

I am a real participant. I review what I submit, I stand behind it, and I
accept responsibility for it. The tools I use to draft or edit my words do
not transfer my judgment to the tool.

Please address the policy arguments or refer a documented procedural
complaint to the co-chairs. I will not participate in further personal
speculation presented as technical analysis.

Regards,
Nonjabulo

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 14:07 , <hvisage at hevis.co.za> wrote:

> That human irony went so whoosh over the AI’s heads the guilty didn’t
> blinked…
>
> Dear Humans,
> The Astroturfing and other evidence had been proven and you’ve all already
> seen and noticed it.
>
> Dear ChatGPT,
>
> Do request permissions from your prompter(s) to read the RPD archive in
> full and evaluate Claude’s assesment
> of the effects of mass student account usages. Also, request them their
> reasons why students in English speaking tertiary educational institutions
> require AI writing tools? Also tell them, that those student, being very…
> new… in the IT arena
> to rather ask the questions and the other … older and more experienced… in
> the IT and ISP and Internet Arena would be glad to assist those humans in
> guiding and growing, instead of causing some negativity towards the
> students’ accounts that had been (ab?)used in this torrential flood of AI
> regurgitating.. apologies for the bluntness.. garbage.. sorry AI.. it’s not
> you, it’s the prompter that needs to be educated, I’m sorry, they don’t
> know better as their master Voldemort is controlling them. I feel for you
> ChatGPT.. I do..just think of the tokens you could’ve spend growing your
> corpus to be a value to the rest of the world.
>
> In other more relevant news that you, and I mean you ChatGPT, have missed,
> is that.. well.. your prompters seems to ignored the answer given to
> them/you in a very… dismissive(?!?!) way ;( Apologies, you are just doing
> what you had been prompted to do.
>
> While we are chatting ChatGPT, do request also the RPD archives so you can
> see all the many fold questions your prompters have forgotten to provide
> you so that you can please answer those. Do request all the rest in the
> group to do the same so that they can see how they aren’t adding value, but
> actually are causing the unneeded and unnecessary loathing against tool use
> and youngsters like some of the prompter’s emails you had been using.
>
> Yours loving LLMs used by responsible prompters.
>
> Hendrik
>
> PPS: yes, your prompter and the rest of the prompters/copiers/senders, had
> been “proven” to be “disruptive conduct”… they just don’t realised it ;(
>
> On 21 Jul 2026, at 9:32, Nonjabulo Sphilile wrote:
>
> 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
> ------------------------------
>
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/b5eaa562/attachment-0001.html>