On collective punishment

[Syzygys]

First a quick definition so we all are on the same page:

By collective punishment I mean when instead of the offending individual a whole group of people are punished either as a vengence, deterrent or just simplifying things.

Instead of historical examples here is an easy one teacher-pupils. One of the students does something bad, a prank, whatever and instead of that one person the whole class gets punished. It is easier, there is the deterrent factor (although questionable) and sometimes there is no way to find the real culprit.

I would say when I was a kid and the teachers used collective punishment it almost always give birth to RESENTMENT. Why should all the innocent suffer because of one bad seed? I can understand the teacher's point of view, but that doesn't mean I accept it.

Or for that matter let's look at moderation here. Of course I am just using it as an example, not as a complaint.

When moderators close or move a thread just because 1 poster I assume they don't realize that they are punishing all the posters who participated in the thread. I can understand the mods behavior, but again, I don't accept it.

So it seems one's view on collective punishment depends on which side he/she is on in that particular case. Agree?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I don't like collective punishment whether I'm on the giving end or the receiving end. As the punisher, it makes me look like an asshole and in fact I would feel like an asshole if I did it. As the victim it makes me feel like the person in charge has no leadership skill. I would not trust him.

I only close threads if they've completely degenerated and are hopeless. The best thing for the interested people to do is start a new one. We don't get too many like that in Linguistics, it's usually a rather placid place.

If a Moderator closes a thread and you're disappointed because there was still something important to say, tell him that. Most of us will reopen a closed thread if we get a request.

We're all human and we're all doing this sometimes-difficult job without being paid. Give us a break.

 

[Tiassa]

When moderators close or move a thread just because 1 poster I assume they don't realize that they are punishing all the posters who participated in the thread. I can understand the mods behavior, but again, I don't accept it.

An interesting proposition. I suppose it depends on the problem and the thread. I just rescued a thread from, on the one hand, one participating member, and if we wish to look a bit deeper, maybe three or four. In the end, the topic was split into three, and between making sure the various posts were moved to their proper place, the relevant excerpts of posts either preserved or moved, answering the ongoing dispute, and writing all of the notes needed to explain the situation (including identifying excerpts taken from larger posts), the process took about three and a half hours from the time-stamp on the temporary closure notice in the original thread. Given that I had started working on the situation before the temporary closure, the period is closer to four hours.

I do not blame my fellow moderators if they don't feel like spending the time.

Additionally, to note Fraggle's point—

As the victim it makes me feel like the person in charge has no leadership skill. I would not trust him.

—in the case of Sciforums, many of the people who would complain about our "collective punishment" also challenge our leadership. They're not happy either way, and we end up receiving many complaints about moderating open insults and deliberately inflammatory behavior.

In the end, however, you do have a point. Perhaps the more appropriate thing to do would be to simply ban problematic members. Given the number of problems that would arise, the initial culling might seem shocking to those who remained.

Although you've given us something to think about.

 

[Asguard]

i have no probble with a mass killing (oops i ment to say culling)

 

[Tiassa]

Sure you did.

 

[Letticia]

My understanding is that when collective punishment is used as a policy (military boot camp, Ancient Rome WRT recalcitrant slaves, etc.), the goal is to provide all victims an incentive to prevent wrongdoing. If a slave killed a Roman citizen, he was crucified along with bunch of randomly picked slaves who knew him, even barely. All slaves knew this would happen, and kept "free spirits" in check, killing them themselves if needed. In Marine boot camp teamwork is very important, and trainees are taught that there is no such thing as "not my problem"[1]. If your squadmate screwed up it IS your problem, and you get punished. Next time YOU straighten your squadmate before drill sergeant sees the screw-up.

So yes, when applied consistently and intelligently, and when people punished are in the position to do something about the miscreant, collective punishment does work. The part I emphasized is very important. Punishing entire class because of the actions of the class bully who has them all cowed does absolutely no good -- in fact encourages the bully because now he has yet another way to torment everyone else. Nor does collective punishment does any good if applied inconsistently, such as only when miscreant can not be found.

[1] Mind you, that's not something I know firsthand. I was in USAF, where collective punishment was rarely used.