|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiny

Professor

|
|
 |
« #11 : 02-17-2006 22:22 »
« : 02-17-2006 22:22 »
|
|
No, no, no, no, no. You aren't getting the bureaucratic mind. Things can be insanely complicated, but they're never just frivolous. Everything has a reason.
It's obvious that the stamp is used in the future where we in the 21st century would initial something. The majority of bureaucratic forms in the future must have a standard five boxes requiring "initialling"(stamping) for approval. Therefore, to leave one of these boxes un-stamped is to fail to approve some vital little portion of it...thus rendering the form incompletely filled out, and thus not wholly valid.
Morgan Procter was young and reckless, and let one of the boxes slip her by. She failed to fully validate her own form, thus she went out on an unapproved date, a serious infraction for a future high-level bureaucrat. Like nudie photos turning up for an evangelist's wife, or a plagiarized student paper in a Nobel prize winner's history, it's a sign of a character flaw that seriously throws doubt on her suitability for her present career.
Now pardon me while I go sort my pennies by year and arrange my colored pens in spectrum order....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blane

Professor

|
|
 |
« #16 : 02-18-2006 17:23 »
|
|
Originally posted by Shiny: No, no, no, no, no. You aren't getting the bureaucratic mind. Things can be insanely complicated, but they're never just frivolous. Everything has a reason.
I was refering to that. Sending 2 letters like the central bureaucracy would be like me double posting with the first one saying "Dear peelers, you are about to read a post by Blane" That dumb old person thing, i just put in there as a joke to be frivilious Understand?
|
|
|
|
|
Shiny

Professor

|
|
 |
« #17 : 02-19-2006 01:39 »
|
|
Well, you have to notify a person that an important message is coming, for heaven's sake, otherwise how would they know to prepare for it?  What I don't get are the arrows pointing to the blue-and-white thing standing up behind Hermes' head, and the "people crossing" symbols floating in mid-air. They sort of confused the issue, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpaceCase

Liquid Emperor
 
|
|
 |
« #24 : 03-01-2006 12:01 »
« : 08-27-2008 19:34 »
|
|
Originally posted by David A: What makes you think that having a severe case of OCD would disqualify someone from being head of the Central Bureaucracy, rather than being a requirement for the job? Not meaning to be "the Devil's advocate' but; What if said compulsion is over something unrelated to being a good, efficient Bureaucrat? Say... compulsively washing one's hands? Not stepping on seams in the pavement? Pulling one's hair out? Or a myriad of others? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David A

Space Pope
   
|
|
 |
« #27 : 03-02-2006 14:43 »
|
|
Originally posted by SpaceCase: Not meaning to be "the Devil's advocate' but; Ever notice that whenever someone says something like that, it's always immediately followed by that person doing exactly what he says he doesn't mean to do? "Not meaning to be insulting, but you're stupid and ugly." "Not meaning to sound negative, but that's the worst idea ever." Pffft.
|
|
|
|
|
Gopher

Fallback Guy
Space Pope
   
|
|
 |
« #28 : 03-02-2006 17:31 »
« : 03-02-2006 17:31 »
|
|
Originally posted by David A: What makes you think that having a severe case of OCD would disqualify someone from being head of the Central Bureaucracy, rather than being a requirement for the job? Well, particurlarly the fact that he sat locked in his office 24/7, refused to meet with anyone who didn't have the correct form filled out, refused to give out the form to anyone who didn't have the correct form-request form filled out, and generally made life impossible for everyone. And the regulation isn't against OCD in particular, just against debilitating mental disorders in general. The compatability of OCD and work as a bureaucrat is the reason he was able to climb in rank so far before anybody noticed. Incidentally, his condition was first detected by his first assistant, who attempted to report it but was immediately demoted and transfered for violating the chain of command; all such complaints are to be directed to your immediate supervisor, who will review them and pass them on. Naturally, his boss (the OCD one in question) wasn't keen on passing the paperwork up the chain. This cycle repeated itself many times, until it was finally noticed by a co-worker with whom he was assigned to collaborate on a massive re-indexing project. The co-worker observed that among his compulsions was shredding every 5th document he touched without reading it (whether it was stamped "Do Not Read - Shred Immediately" or not); but by this point, he was so high-ranked that it was impossible to complete all pertinent paperwork and remove him before he was promoted again - invaliditing the old paperwork and requiring the process to start over. Things ground to a complete stand-still for months, due to both his refusal to come out of his office and everyone else's desperate attempts to conform to the exponential stream of new regulations he kept issuing. Finally, one brash young Bureaucrat (grade 214) simply stormed into his office and stamped his forehead with the "Do no open. Incinerate immediately" stamper from his desk; The bureaucrats threw a party, which involved the drinking of several cups of water, 3 orange streamers, and 5 exclamations of joy. After a few weeks the deadlock was ended and the bureaucracy resumed it's normal rate of slow, plodding non-progress (Nobody outside the central bureaucracy ever noticed the difference) The bureaucrat who saved the day was roundly congratulated, then booted out of the Bureaucracy for violating the chain of command, entry into a superior's office without permission, and improper use of an official stamp. A proposal was filed to build a statue in his honor, but the paperwork has never been seen again. The bureaucrats who threw #1 in the incenerator were convicted of manslaughter but let off with a sentence of community service since they were only following standard procedures. If you have any more objections to this reasoning, be warned my next response may be even longer, forcing the thread to be moved into the "fan fiction" section. [edit]grammar, spelling, and readability[/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|