I work in the public sector, and the people I work with at the grade of data entry and rubberstamping do have the ability to think critically and would be able to handle a little bit of leeway on what is acceptable and what is not if the law allowed it. I understand why the county clerk's office did what they did. I just think it is more trouble than it is worth when the couple's intent was clear.
Barring of course, the chance that some sort of disaster that would destroy the piece of paper beyond all recognition so much so that it would take an FBI lab to determine that his last name, was not, in fact, Groom. Oh, the horrors to so many if there would be any confusion as to his last name in the event that the only thing left was a poor copy of that piece of paper. =)
Again - "if the law allowed it." I'm certainly not trying to imply that the people in the position lack the ability1 - rather, I'm saying that in most bureaucracies, they'd lack the authority - they don't get to decide, not they can't decide. The one constant complaint I hear from people stuck in the front lines of any major organization is that the best course is obvious with common sense, but it's one you're not allowed to take under the regulations. From state employees (and I've known quite a few working in the capitol complex), it's magnified tenfold.
And all I'm saying is this: Letting these twits write in Bride/Groom provides no valuable data, at all, to anyone, ever. It adds no value to allow it. It does not matter to the state in the least. The only change that can come from doing it is a negative one. You're talking to a man who gets the wrong name on half his bills and bank statements etc, because the spelling isn't common and people mistype it without bothering to check, whose employer had his social security number wrong for years because he wrote the numerals European-style instead of American-style once. You cannot tell me that cramming useless information into a form field won't have a negative impact eventually. There's no good reason to allow people to cram it in, and a decent reason not to allow it. That's all I'm saying.
I think looking at this form and going "Eh, there's crap on here that shouldn't be, reject it and they can send a clean one tomorrow" was the perfectly logical option, same as would be done on any other document. For the couple getting it to go "ZOMG, WE ARE BEING OPPRESSED" is such a ridiculous overreaction that no one should have anticipated it, and I'm specifically glad it's not being caved to, personally. That's obviously a matter of opinion, and I am notably prone to schadenfreude, but still.
1 - Admittedly, on sober reflection, the section about Will Groom and John Bride might give that impression. I'd rather meant to imply that it would be an easy thing to cock up moving through a stack of documents or working under pressure - a natural mistake to make if you're allowing folks to add in little commentaries to their legal documents. Again, my simple, 4-letter last name gets screwed up a lot even when it's clearly printed all on its lonesome. I don't find it hard to believe that extra visual noise ups the ante.
I work at my state's capitol complex, actually. :) One of the issues I deal with a few times a week are employees entered into one of our databases more than once under two different socials (due to a miskey during one of those entries). And! My last name is a common last name in my area with a weird spelling due to a typo a few generations back. My name is misspelled everywhere, including my tax receipts, and just yesterday, I had to use those receipts at the DMV to renew my car registration. I am perfectly aware of the confusion and aggravation associated with these things.
I did not suggest that cramming useless information into a form field can't have a negative impact. I said in this specific case that it would be really unlikely, because I believe what they put in to be benign as their intent was clear.
Further, with regard to government workers, I said: "...would be able to handle a little bit of leeway..."
I'm not sure if I was unclear there, but I used "would be" intending to imply that if they had been given that authority, they have the judgment skills to make good decisions. I know the lower level peons don't have the authority to make such judgment calls, even without you enlightening me.
I am done with this conversation. I accepted your condescension at first as just a knee-jerk reaction, but it's sort of grown to the point where you're talking to me as if I've lived in a box and had no experience with How the World Really Works. You are just going to have to accept that someone way out there in the internet understands why they had to reject the form but still thinks it was silly and needless when the intent was perfectly clear.
Well, I'm sorry for the condescension. My online tone needs a lot of work, but somehow, over the years, I haven't learned to be explicit without sounding like an ass.
The reply you gave gave me the impression that you thought I was saying "lower level peons" weren't smart enough to make these decisions, which would be rude as hell, and I thought that was a source of anger, so I was trying to be really explicit about what I was trying to say. It wasn't a matter of "enlightening" you, it was a matter of "no, really, I'm not attacking government workers, here, I know these people." People who respond to what they think I'm saying instead of what I'm saying is one of my kneejerks. Bad execution on my part, I guess. Anyway, topic dropped, apologies.
Honestly, I can admit it was a bit git-ish of me right from the start, jumping in in the first place. I can see the condescension, to a degree, in severe retrospect. Hindsight, etc. Sorry I started trouble on your journal, bud.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Barring of course, the chance that some sort of disaster that would destroy the piece of paper beyond all recognition so much so that it would take an FBI lab to determine that his last name, was not, in fact, Groom. Oh, the horrors to so many if there would be any confusion as to his last name in the event that the only thing left was a poor copy of that piece of paper. =)
no subject
And all I'm saying is this: Letting these twits write in Bride/Groom provides no valuable data, at all, to anyone, ever. It adds no value to allow it. It does not matter to the state in the least. The only change that can come from doing it is a negative one. You're talking to a man who gets the wrong name on half his bills and bank statements etc, because the spelling isn't common and people mistype it without bothering to check, whose employer had his social security number wrong for years because he wrote the numerals European-style instead of American-style once. You cannot tell me that cramming useless information into a form field won't have a negative impact eventually. There's no good reason to allow people to cram it in, and a decent reason not to allow it. That's all I'm saying.
I think looking at this form and going "Eh, there's crap on here that shouldn't be, reject it and they can send a clean one tomorrow" was the perfectly logical option, same as would be done on any other document. For the couple getting it to go "ZOMG, WE ARE BEING OPPRESSED" is such a ridiculous overreaction that no one should have anticipated it, and I'm specifically glad it's not being caved to, personally. That's obviously a matter of opinion, and I am notably prone to schadenfreude, but still.
1 - Admittedly, on sober reflection, the section about Will Groom and John Bride might give that impression. I'd rather meant to imply that it would be an easy thing to cock up moving through a stack of documents or working under pressure - a natural mistake to make if you're allowing folks to add in little commentaries to their legal documents. Again, my simple, 4-letter last name gets screwed up a lot even when it's clearly printed all on its lonesome. I don't find it hard to believe that extra visual noise ups the ante.
no subject
I did not suggest that cramming useless information into a form field can't have a negative impact. I said in this specific case that it would be really unlikely, because I believe what they put in to be benign as their intent was clear.
Further, with regard to government workers, I said: "...would be able to handle a little bit of leeway..."
I'm not sure if I was unclear there, but I used "would be" intending to imply that if they had been given that authority, they have the judgment skills to make good decisions. I know the lower level peons don't have the authority to make such judgment calls, even without you enlightening me.
I am done with this conversation. I accepted your condescension at first as just a knee-jerk reaction, but it's sort of grown to the point where you're talking to me as if I've lived in a box and had no experience with How the World Really Works. You are just going to have to accept that someone way out there in the internet understands why they had to reject the form but still thinks it was silly and needless when the intent was perfectly clear.
no subject
The reply you gave gave me the impression that you thought I was saying "lower level peons" weren't smart enough to make these decisions, which would be rude as hell, and I thought that was a source of anger, so I was trying to be really explicit about what I was trying to say. It wasn't a matter of "enlightening" you, it was a matter of "no, really, I'm not attacking government workers, here, I know these people." People who respond to what they think I'm saying instead of what I'm saying is one of my kneejerks. Bad execution on my part, I guess. Anyway, topic dropped, apologies.
no subject
no subject
no subject