Good question, and this is the only reason I come to the forum: to discuss ideas and improve myself. Not for the latest gossip at an AETC base.
what would I do?
1. Make the rules clear: drinking until you get an ARI is unsat.
2. Explain why the rules relate to the mission, and aren't just rules for rules sake. ARIs mean you have shitty judgement. Shitty judgement means I don't want to sign orders with you as the A code because I can't trust you. Importantly, this logic won't work with every rule. "You can't wear a reflective belt, you can't hack a combat mission" is bullshit because there's no correlation between the two. However "you can't handle your liquor or know you own limits or plan a backup plan, therefore I can't trust your mission judgement" is completely plausible.
3. Once you do those two, which most commanders already are doing, crush violators. Explain in public what happened and why you gave that punishment.
Thats it. I don't think this is cosmic. The vagueness surrounding details of mass punishments dilute their utility. People need an obvious connection between what happened and the consequences. It needs to make sense. For example "To all IPs: 5 IPs got hammered at drop night and, with the full knowledge of their peers, drove home. That's unsat and drinking is curtailed in my facilities on my time until I'm given your plan to take care of each other and prevent this threat to our mission." Totally valid.
But this lacks detail required to connect cause and effect and is consequently being mocked. Mass punishment is almost never a good idea. The occasions are incredibly rare. The only way it could ever achieve the intended outcome is with clarity. I need a lot of details before I'm going to buy-in to the idea that what someone else did was my fault. Sure it's possible. Prove it first.