Comments on: Term to describe those people who ruin it for the rest.

Question: Term to describe those people who ruin it for the rest.

fizzix — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:33:46 -0800

vocab-filter: Is there a vocabulary word or term to describe a service or an act of generosity that is ceased by its maintainers because a small, select group broke the rules ?

(Anecdote: I became inspired to ask this question, after hearing that city-maintained recycling bins were removed at a location because people were dumping non-recyclables in and around the bins. I am writing about the issue in my blog and became curious about this).

Additionally, would there a different term if a majority of people were not following the rules, as opposed to just a small, select few ?

I first thought that this would be a tragedy of the commons but I found it to be different because there is not a finite resource (i.e. clean water) that is being exploited.

By: fizzix

fizzix — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:35:17 -0800

Ack. The headline and the body can be a bit conflicting: I'm looking for the term to describe the act or service, not the people who caused the service to cease.

By: oddman

oddman — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:41:06 -0800

Wouldn't the phrase "one apple spoils the bunch" be applicable here? You should get some mileage out of calling the litter-bugs "rotten apples."

By: Lemurrhea

Lemurrhea — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:44:51 -0800

I would go with oddman's formulation, and follow it up with "this is why we can't have nice things".

By: foooooogasm

foooooogasm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:46:02 -0800

Abrogate.

Abrogate is derived from the Latin abrogare, "to repeal a law." Abrogate is most often used in formal situations to refer to the termination of a law, treaty, custom, or agreement.

By: foooooogasm

foooooogasm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:48:13 -0800

Also, revocate.

By: foooooogasm

foooooogasm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:49:22 -0800

Also, unpromise.

By: jayder

jayder — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:52:54 -0800

I first thought that this would be a tragedy of the commons but I found it to be different because there is not a finite resource (i.e. clean water) that is being exploited.

I think this is a tragedy of the commons issue, because the people breaking the rules are making exceptions for themselves to the duties that are generally applicable to all, for the responsible use of the resource (the resource being the city's provision of recycling facilities).

By: foooooogasm

foooooogasm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:06:55 -0800

Also, decertify, countermand, renege, recind, adeem, annul, renounce, and unswear, but nothing really specific to charity.

By: adamrice

adamrice — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:15:58 -0800

I actually do think that "tragedy of the commons" is an apt description of the phenomenon at work here: limiting the application of that phrase to only scarce resources may be strictly correct, but it's immediately understandable in this case as well.

Not sure what you'd call it when the commons are roped off, though.

By: effluvia

effluvia — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:28:10 -0800

I'm going to go with "forfeit".

By: martens

martens — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:36:22 -0800

"Ruining it for the rest of us."

By: miss lynnster

miss lynnster — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:17:05 -0800

I believe the technical term is "pooping on a party."

By: salvia

salvia — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:44:29 -0800

The concept of collective punishment comes in handy here, but as it's a war crime, something less strong should be used instead.

By: telegraph

telegraph — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:49:20 -0800

The reason to not call this a tragedy of the commons is not that the resource isn't finite, but that the resource isn't being ruined from overuse. The tragedy of the commons is that when a resource is offered freely to a community, the community members use that resource beyond the efficient point. This sounds more like stupidity and/or littering. Personally I like "this is why we can't have nice things."

By: rokusan

rokusan — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:55:23 -0800

This is why we can't have nice things.

By: jayder

jayder — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:57:23 -0800

Personally I like "this is why we can't have nice things."

I like it, too, but I think the questioner was asking for an actual term to denote the phenomenon, not an internet meme that is usually just a smart-ass reply to an event that one doesn't like.

By: Ghidorah

Ghidorah — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:01:19 -0800

Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Shitting the pool?

By: pemberkins

pemberkins — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:53:24 -0800

A more succinct definition might be "to punish the majority for the actions of a minority." That's similar to what you're getting at. I can't think of a word meaning this off the top of my head, but I'll mention it in case it puts someone else in the right track. I'll keep thinking.

By: idiopath

idiopath — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:07:45 -0800

Not all resources are natural resources. If you consider "city infrastructure set up to collect recyclable materials" a limited resource, then this is a tragedy of the commons. Clearly that public resource was being used beyond the efficient point.

By: foooooogasm

foooooogasm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:14:48 -0800

This is going to haunt me all night. I just read through the script of Dead Poet's Society, which is what the question reminds me of. No term there that was helpful.

I'm now looking re:factionalism, or for a word that describes an action taken against a faction (or the contentious minority within a larger group), but coming up trumps.

I know you're there, damn word. And I will find you!

By: pemberkins

pemberkins — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:41:56 -0800

One article refers to this general phenomenon as "whole group discipline" (context: taking away everybody's recess because one child misbehaved). Sadly, Googling "whole group discipline" did not turn up many more uses of this phrase. Is there anyone out there familiar with classroom management techniques that knows another, more common word or phrase for this technique?

By: foooooogasm

foooooogasm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:00:56 -0800

Reclaim, repossess, replevin, reprive, revocate are more like taking something back, not stopping. Stanch means to stop, but is not specific enough.

Discontinue is plain (discontinuance, discontinuation, discontinued, discontinuer), but it is specific to something that comes to an end after happening regularly or ends something that has been happening regularly, but for any cause, not a factional rule breaking.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:02:53 -0800

spoilers?

By: salvia

salvia — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:46:33 -0800

Yeah, pemberkins, that's where I was going with the "collective punishment" thing.... "collective loss of privilege?" "Whole group privilege removal?" "Collective revocation?" "Whole group revocation?" We could still use a great verb that means not just "to take away a privilege or offer" but also "~ as a result of abuse or misuse."

By: pemberkins

pemberkins — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:13:39 -0800

Salvia - if I Google "collective punishment classroom" (no quotes), it turns up the odd mention of the phrase "collective punishment" in reference to the classroom discipline issue I mentioned. So, there's at least a little evidence that people use the phrase outside of the context of wars. I suspect that you hit the nail on the head, and "collective punishment" is the best, or at least most common, way there is to describe this idea (even though it is most commonly used in the context of the war crime).

By: GPF

GPF — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:56:24 -0800

Economics and Poli Sci term the phenomenon, the "free rider problem."

By: fizzix

fizzix — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:22:18 -0800

Thanks for all of the answers.

Salvia's and pemberkins' mentions of collective punishment would work the best although it is not as clear as I would have hoped.

I'll leave this unmarked (of best answers) and encourage any more future answers but I especially appreciate those responses.

By: SamuelBowman

SamuelBowman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:15:23 -0800

I came here to give GPF's answer, so I'll second it.