Sorry - 15 pages to read and this has probably already been answered, but is there a link to the article? You can just refer me to the page number if you like!
I don't smack and I don't particularly punish. Just never found I've needed much of the latter and made a decision, when dd was tiny, not to smack. I was smacked and didn't think it was all that, so decided not to do the same with my children. I don't mind or resent the fact that I was smacked, though I think it did contribute to my excessive jumpiness and my inability to deal with conflict, but I couldn't say that for sure.
I daresay I sounded a bit smug there, claiming I don't use much in the way of punishment. I find it hard to explain when people ask, 'Well what do you do?!' because it isn't removal of toys or privileges, or time out, or naughty steps or shaming or counting to three, or anything I recognise as disciplinary tactics. Perhaps I got lucky? I don't know. Dd, when toddling, responded well to, 'DD, I don't want you to blance on the hearth, I want you to walk on the carpet, OK?' Ds was a bit more of a challenge and, I admit, drove me to distraction at times. 
On one occasion I broke my own rule and smacked him. It had no effect on him whatsoever and just made me feel rather silly, so that was the first and last time!
I do raise my voice on occasion and I do say, 'For goodness sake, can we stop the pointless argument? Can you sort it out? Do you need help?' I've got a really scary voice I can use if needed - it occasionally gets an aiting at work, rather than at home. It is so underused that I have to make a physical effort to retrieve it, when needed. I also have used the, 'That made me feel sad when you said/did...[insert misdemeanour of choice]' and neither of mine seem to want to have that effect. I have also, on rare occasions, said, 'Oh, for goodness sakes - go and sit somewhere else for a bit. Read, play - do whatever you like - but stay there until you've calmed down! When you've done that, come back and we can probably get on just fine again.'
I work in a school, so I'm no stranger to doling out punishments (mainly of the 'time out' nature), and I use the, 'You can do it now, or you can do it in your lunchtime,' line quite a lot there. Funnily enough, the children on whom it has the least effect are the ones most likely to offend in the first place. What is that? Personality? Upbringing? A sense that they are lacking in fulfilment? I don't know. I do know, because I am party to the information, that some of these same children have draconian punishments handed out at home, so I wouldn't say they really work. I think what works is a combination of lucking-out with easy-going children, and making the child feel valued from the start. The kids who feel 'topped-up' emotionally are generally happier and less likely to get into trouble, I think. If my own two, dd especially, start being 'difficult' I know I have to top them up with affection and praise. It's often when I'm feeling at a low ebb, so that is not easy, but generally worth the effort.
Yeah, so not smacking, really. Someone early on said nothing else works. It does, but it has to start early and it runs counter to traditional notions of punishment and rewards. I think that's all.