Moving the Goalposts
What it is
Continuously changing the criteria for success so that no evidence or achievement is ever sufficient.
How it works
Real-world examples
- •An employee meets all performance targets but the manager adds new criteria to deny a promotion.
- •A debate opponent demands evidence, then dismisses each piece and asks for something different.
- •A partner who says "If you just did X, I'd be happy" — but when X is done, it becomes Y.
Ethical guidelines
- ●Set clear, stable criteria and honor them once met.
- ●If criteria genuinely need to change, explain why and acknowledge previous achievements.
- ●Do not use shifting standards to maintain control over others.
How to defend against it
- ►Get agreements in writing before starting, including specific success criteria.
- ►Call out the pattern: "The original requirement was X. I met it. Why has it changed?"
- ►Recognize when no amount of effort will satisfy someone and disengage.
From the Defense Playbook
Move the claims, numbers, promises, and your own reasoning out of your head and onto paper or a file, where they cannot be re-described, forgotten, or overloaded.
Before defending a belief, write down the specific evidence that would make you abandon it, which turns the belief into a testable claim and exposes positions (yours or a persuader's) that nothing could ever dislodge.
When someone treats every reason you give as an opening for negotiation, stop supplying reasons: state your decision once and decline to justify, argue, defend, or explain it; this is folk practice from support-group culture rather than a tested technique.
A structured way of asking for something or saying no, taken from dialectical behavior therapy: Describe, Express, Assert, Reinforce, while staying Mindful, Appearing confident, and Negotiating.
Calmly repeat the same short statement of what you want or will not do, in the same words and tone, as many times as it takes, without being drawn into answering each new argument.
Keep a dated, factual record of incidents, messages, and transactions so that your memory and your account cannot be rewritten, and store it only where the other person cannot find or reach it, because your safety comes before any record.
Borrow the competitive debater's note-taking method: write each of the other side's points in a column as they are made, put the responses beside them, and look at what is left unanswered, so that volume and speed cannot substitute for substance.
When a position seems to change size depending on whether it is being advanced or defended, write down the bold version and the modest version side by side and ask which one is being claimed, so the speaker cannot enjoy the conclusions of one and the defensibility of the other.
When a new topic is introduced in the middle of an unresolved one, acknowledge it, write it down as something to come back to, and return to the original point, so that diversions neither derail the discussion nor go unanswered.
Before arguing over who is right, ask what observation would count against the claim, and agree on it in advance; a claim that no possible evidence could count against is not being offered as a claim about the world.
Before an A/B test or pilot starts, write down the primary metric, the harm metrics that must not get worse, the sample size or stopping rule, and the planned analysis, so that the result can tell you something you did not already want to hear.
Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.
DISARM framework
How analysts would file this in the open DISARM framework (v1.6.1, CC BY-SA 4.0). Closest matches, mapped by Persuasion Lab.
References
- Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?. European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2–4The claim that the criteria for success are shifted so no evidence is ever sufficient: the authors list 'impossible expectations' — demanding a standard of proof that keeps moving and can never be met — among the core tactics of organised denial; the paper addresses science denial rather than interpersonal manipulation.
- Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Houghton MifflinThe negotiation form of the tactic: in the chapter on 'dirty tricks' the authors describe 'escalating demands' — raising a demand or reopening issues thought settled each time the other side meets a requirement — and recommend naming the tactic explicitly, which is the entry's core defence.