Thanks. Though… I derailed the coffee one today. (I realized I’d already saved over $90 by having not drank coffee for this long. Rationalization for the win.)
I will continue to have a goal related to this but, having derailed, it no longer needs policing.
That’s weasel talk. You’re on the hook until 1 Jan 2016.
To me, that was always just a different way of derailing / failing at this goal. (“I have these two graphs, and I want to, in a way, extend my akrasia horizon on them.”) There’s no way to just wrap it into the goal using the UI (I’m not saying I think there should be; I don’t think that’s a particularly useful feature, generally speaking), so I farmed it out to the group. That’s def. how I intended it (and the reason I made the pledge the same as the “if you catch me” reward).
I was trying to stop myself from being able to avoid a derailment fee by either patiently reducing my pledge down to zero over several weeks, or by just changing my road past the horizon. I do see, though, that the way the posts are phrased don’t lend themselves to that interpretation at all. So I should think about whether I should be forced to continue despite my intention, as a way to enforce wording things more carefully, or go with the intention of making this a change to the goal’s setup.
Let me think about that as I start my second coffee of the day.
You should definitely make sure you write what you really mean.
It looks like this sort of thing is exactly what you were trying to protect yourself from.
We’ve got no way to tell if present you is just trying to rationalise things and past you really intended to keep up the goal until the end of the year.
I think you should continue with the goal at it’s current total limits.
But there are enough loopholes in what you have written for you to get out of it if you want.
In the end it’s all up to you anyway.
I’ve thought about this a little.
I def. intended this as an extension of the graph, to force the derailment (or pseudo-derailment) whether I either went over OR changed my goal, since it was intended as a way to extend the akrasia horizon to the end of the year… BUT, I admit that I never considered for long that I might be willing to derail, and so didn’t put much thought into the contingency. Still, I was definitely operating under the assumption that $90 = over. On the other hand, I want to continue minding it, and it’s probably best if I can’t change it from one week to the next.
SO, I think what makes sense is to continue minding (obv.), and to choose whatever rate I now think makes sense, as with any derailment and restart. but to continue with the compelled maintenance of whatever that rate is once it’s chosen (and to assume that this applies to the other goal, as well. Though, I’m having no problem with it at all, so it’s not really on my radar). I also want to state that I can make the road harder, but not easier again afterwards. (Just to be more specific about what I mean: If I make it harder in the future, I can’t undo that (except after a derailment), otherwise that’s a pseudo-derailment for which someone can claim my money.)
(I’m also going to switch to counting ounces, so it’s clearer to read, and I will include decaf in a more specific way, too. I should have done that from the start since I was measuring it in portions of cups anyway.)
I think that’s a decent balance between what I intended and the risk that what I intended turns into “derailing = free-for-all”. Thoughts?