Kind of ironic that a style meant to lay the cards on the table is called bluff.
BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
11–20 of 136 posts
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#12Like everything else in the US military, there is a written standard to support this style. See Army Regulation 25-50, Section IV "The Army Writing Style" https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50.... > Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active…
That's the passive voice! The explanation for why their example of the active voice is in fact the passive voice is right below, in section "e". That's pretty funny.
Trying to make it active requires moving the key information to the end of the sentence:
"The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]."
Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because the verb's subject isn't the focus. Passive voice can also be clearer than active voice when there's no relevant or meaningful actor to use as the subject.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#13I appreciate that the first line of the article says:
> BLUF is a military communications acronym—it stands for “bottom line up front”—that’s designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.
...thus following its own advice. One sentence in and I know what it's talking about.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#14I have a boss who would treat the subject line of his emails like SMS. The body of the email is often blank. I have adopted that. It makes BLUF look slow and awkward.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#15Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#16I have a boss who would treat the subject line of his emails like SMS. The body of the email is often blank. I have adopted that. It makes BLUF look slow and awkward.
That works really well if it finishes with EOM or .
Otherwise it's unclear if there is missing content.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#17From one of the article's comments: "Question: would you use BLUF in every blog intro? Storytelling intros can be inspiring, for example."
If every blog intro followed BLUF, then maybe I'd be actually interested in reading them. Storytelling intros only inspire me to lose interest immediately and close the tab.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#18My dad was career military. So was my ex husband.
This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#19Doesn't sound too much different than traditional inverted pyramid news style.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#20I've been doing this for a while and didn't know it had a name. Sometimes I add an explicit snarky heading like this:
TL;DR:
However, when writing comments on HN or other forums I go for what I call a "fireside chat" approach. Complete with metaphors, euphemisms and lots more sarcasm. Mostly because I find it more entertaining and enjoyable.