Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7796604" data-attributes="member: 6802765">I think the reason you are getting responses that puzzle you may be that your opening post framed your search to find worse-than-doing-nothing consequences as a requirement of your adherence to the goal-and-approach method. I for one interpreted your original post to have the following structure:1. You want to adhere to the goal and approach method.2. Goal-and-approach requires imposing worse-than-doing-nothing consequences on a failed check.3. In some situations it's challenging to intuit what worse-than-doing-nothing consequences would look like, making it difficult to adhere to the goal-and-approach method.Under that inerpretation of your opening post, I think it makes sense that you're getting responses from other posters (including me) challenging the assumption in #2. It also explains why you're getting pushback on what the rules say: [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] has previously described the goal-and-approach method as a (necessary?) consequence of rules in the book. So since you appeared to be assuming that goal-and-approach requires worse-than-doing-nothing consequences, and goal-and-approach is presented as following from of the rules, it makes sense that other posters are pointing out how worse-than-doing-nothing consequences do not follow from the rules in an attempt provide evidence against your assumption.Having read your other responses in this thread, it seems like your actual intent follows this form:1. You want to impose worse-than-doing-nothing consequences on a failed check, unrelated to your adherence to goal-and-approach.2. You're looking for advice on how to do that in particular situations.Accordingly, from your perspective, you're not even making the assumption that others are arguing against.</blockquote>

Verification