Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

animalz.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#101

Post by dllthomas »

e12e wrote: post #93
dllthomas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subject of the verb "to entitle" is that which grants entitlement. The recipient is the object. I think we can legitimately read the sentence as passive. Active; "applicable regulations" are doing something: "Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year." Passive; "applicable regulations" are still doing something: "You are entitled by applicable regulations to jump…

Isn't the subject you, the verb "to be" (are) - and the reminder a describing clause? You run quickly. You are a good boy. You are entitled to receive praise. ? Ed: but "you qualify for pay" might be better active voice here? Ed2: I see jameshart made a similar point more eloquently about "adjectival phrase"

"Quickly" modifies the verb, "a good boy" is a noun phrase.

"You are smart" is a better analogue, clearly active voice. "You are hit" is another analogue, clearly passive.

I still believe that we can read the original sentence in the latter way - with "entitled" a verb used passively. I remain unsure as to whether we can read it the other way - with "entitled" as adjective.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#102

Post by ryacko »

seidlitz wrote: post #99

Tactics like BLUF are the sad sign of times. We put too much emphasis on hacks, efficiency, and tactics instead of learning and practicing age old rules for good writing or whatever else we need to master.

Often times people like to hear themselves speak and everyone forgets the point of communication.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#103

Post by wrycoder »

kstrauser wrote: post #13

I 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.

Or, “Tell them what you’re going to tell them. Then, tell them. Then, tell them what you told them.” Or, Abstract. Introduction. Body. Conclusion.

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#105

Post by rikroots »

herdrick wrote: post #8
Donald wrote: post #4

Like 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.

I'd argue it's active. But the choice of verb - "to be entitled to" - is poor. A conditional "claim" would make for a better active sentence: "You can claim jump pay for the time..."

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#109

Post by gbacon »

rikroots wrote: post #105
herdrick wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd argue it's active. But the choice of verb - "to be entitled to" - is poor. A conditional "claim" would make for a better active sentence: "You can claim jump pay for the time..."

Argue all you want, but it’s still passive voice. The sentence does not tell the reader who or what is the source of entitlement. Even if it did, it may still be passive voice (You are entitled … by AR XX-X …). The same sentence in active voice is “Army Regulation XX-X entitles you to jump pay for …”

Your suggested improvement is in the active voice, but it’s still wordy. Using can weakens a statement, so look to eliminate this worthless verb. Prefer will or in this case get to the point with “Claim jump pay on Form DDXXXX for the time …”

Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful

#110

Post by blaesus »

Former journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0]. CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively to build an article.

Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first":

1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers;

2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide audience, it is not always obvious;

3. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely to abandon your work prematurely;

4. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could alienate;

5. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because "I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

[1] https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...

Post reply on HN