[rpd] policy supremacy

Tue Jul 21 14:05:16 UTC 2026

Thank you, i agree, discussions should return to the matter at hand which
is the proposal. I also agree with the point you made on participants being
mindful and treating other with respect.

Questions about identities, writing styles, or tools do not resolve the
issues or discussions around policies.

kind regards

M

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 15:46 , <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Policy supremacy (Taye Medoye)
>    2. Re: Writing tools (Nonjabulo Sphilile)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:42:33 +0200
> From: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Cc: nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
> Message-ID:
>         <CACXLxYd3k04B1KnC3hQkhBEbyAZHZTZGAOzh6H09r=
> sNpkmUJQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear All,
>
> Permit me to remark that the first impression one gets perusing the torrent
> of submissions in the last twenty-four hours, is that the focus of the
> Community may have shifted from making helpful and concrete inputs towards
> a proposed policy development, to a supremacy contest, and most likely
> unhealthy rivalry over language use. If this insinuation is valid, then
> there's a need to retreat and refocus.
>
> While the concerns of Jordi are noted, and worthy of critical
> consideration, the point has to be made that the discussion process for
> reaching a consensus on any policy proposal, as enshrined in the standard
> operating procedure, has to be mutual and convincing to receive acceptance.
>
> In another context, the remarks from Ben, sent from his iPhone - objectors
> who all simultaneously and spontaneously joined from Unkown Gmail accounts
> bombard the lists with AI slop, are recognised as community members, or
> even identifiable human beings for that matter - leave much to be desired.
> I do not think such remarks should be welcome on this platform, given the
> quality of commenters and participants.
>
> Going by the community's Code of Conduct, and particularly on the expected
> behaviour of participants, which include - treating others with politeness
> and showing of respect; avoiding personal attacks or otherwise defamatory
> or discriminatory comments, etc, every commenter/participant is expected to
> adhere strictly as established to avoid unnecessary rivalry and chaos.
>
> By way of suggestion therefore, l am inclined to suggest that the tone of
> remarks and commentaries be softened, to eschew any form of bitterness,
> while attention should be on the issues at stake for consideration.
>
> I so suggest!
>
> Taye Medoye.
>
>    1.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/85eab213/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:46:14 +0200
> From: Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com>
> To: hvisage at hevis.co.za
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Writing tools
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJwHbZOiUVyxhjyzq01f=
> G+PhyPv2ao2gTtYnDA6+G2OL5F4qg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 136
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/ad61abc6/attachment.html>