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

21–30 of 136 posts

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

#21

Post by jejones3141 »

alexjm wrote: post #12
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.

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 t…

Perhaps "You deserve jump pay for time spent in training last year"?

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

#23

Post by killjoywashere »

dx87 wrote: post #2

It's not a standard, it's the same as TLDR. The only difference is that it's before the content instead of after.

Yes, the key difference is that tl;dr is, by placement, a sort of self-effacing, humorous admission of self absorption while BLUF is all about teaching every member of a multi-million person organization to write empathically. Not bad for 4 letters. But, yes, if you just move the tl;dr to the top, that would be a great first step.

As a participant in this arena, I can say my observation has been that the real experts often omit the term BLUF because it gets in the way of their message. Omitting BLUF is not a sign of expertise. Far from it. But the really expert empaths know when to break the rules.

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

#24

Post by stebann »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #18

My 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.

I completely identify myself with this. Many people told me that I was rude because of my way I communicate in workplace. But since then, the group I'm working with got used to me and some of them have adopted this style. Sometimes we're really hurry with the schedules and continuous feedback among us has helped us to meet that schedules.

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

#25

Post by herdrick »

jejones3141 wrote: post #21
alexjm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Perhaps "You deserve jump pay for time spent in training last year"?

Or "The Army will pay you for ..."

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

#26

Post by anotherevan »

killjoywashere wrote: post #14

I 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.

I use to do this (with an "EOM" on the end) but gmail doesn't lend itself well to this.

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

#30

Post by lbotos »

derekp7 wrote: post #3

This is a sore spot for me, someone sending an IM with a quick "Got a minute?", which pulls me out of my thought zone. And once I answer back, I have no idea how long it is going to take for them to tell me what their issue is (could be 30 seconds, or a couple minutes -- I've often waited for 10 minutes, then got up to go for a meeting, and they get upset when I don't answer). I'd much rather them just tell me what p…

I think about this a lot, and I call it "atomic messaging" in my head. You need to be able to address the message in full as if it were a pop up. (As messages often are via notifications) If the message requires follow up for clarity it's not atomic enough.

Example:

Did you ask him if what the results were? -> Did you ask Jim what the results of the 2019 Survey are?

It's really helped me avoid being that person, and I've asked it of others with varying results.

Post reply on HN