Legal writing has a similar concept, though it's not as standardized as BLUF. It goes by various abbreviations: IRAC, CRAP, CRAC, CREAC. They all follow the same general format: state your conclusion (C) or the relevant issue (I), recite the rule (R) of law that applies to the facts, explain (E) how the facts apply (A) to the rule of law, and finally restate your conclusion (C) or predict (P) which way the ruling body will decide. Like BLUF, the legal writing format assumes the reader will read only the first part of a communication, and will continue only if he or she needs more detail.
BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
81–90 of 136 posts
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#82I 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.
It still mildly infuriates me that the link text doesn't simply expand the acronym. Infinitely better: Bottom Line Up Front: A military standard to make writing more powerful
You enforced speed and lost clarity. You wrote “...to make writing more powerful.” which states nothing of value while “...designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.” tells you precisely that it was designed with the objectives of enforcing speed and enforcing clarity in the specific contexts of [military] reports and [military] emails.
With BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise, not on the reader to make the connections the writer hopes the reader will make. Leading with BLUF and expanding the acronym later in the sentence leads with the form in which you are most likely to encounter BLUF discussed in a professional context rather than expecting the reader to read the expanded form first and make the connection that “BLUF” is the contracted form of “Bottom Line Up Front” and “Bottom Line Up Front” is the expanded form of “BLUF”.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#83This 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…
For that, there's this: http://www.nohello.com/2013/01/please-dont-say-just-hello-in....
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#84So like, some sort of introduction that summarizes the rest of that paper? Next you'll be telling me they recommend organizing paragraphs according to argument or point and to end it with some sort of conclusion!
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really a passive sentence, even though it has all the attributes the Army apparently deems necessary and sufficient to declare it as such in section e. But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active statement about the recipient: Yo…
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…
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#86This 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 have a friend leading the IT team in a company of ~300, and he goes nuts if people keep probing him with "are you here?".
He's a very chill person, but the problem was getting out of hand, so he started pasting users back with just a link to a page explaining why one does not simply do that. Some people took offense, but mostly the situation improved.
It was along the lines of [1], but not sure if it's exactly the same.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#87Earlier 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.
It's not really a passive sentence, even though it has all the attributes the Army apparently deems necessary and sufficient to declare it as such in section e. But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active statement about the recipient: Yo…
"are" in the concluding sentence of thread parent is equivalent to "are being" in your concluding sentence. "granted" is equivalent to "entitled". In a passive-voice sentence like this, the object of the verb is made to seem like the subject, but the object it remains.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still mildly infuriates me that the link text doesn't simply expand the acronym. Infinitely better: Bottom Line Up Front: A military standard to make writing more powerful
You enforced speed and lost clarity. You wrote “...to make writing more powerful.” which states nothing of value while “...designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.” tells you precisely that it was designed with the objectives of enforcing speed and enforcing clarity in the specific contexts of [military] reports and [military] emails. With BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise,…
He's referring to expanding the acronym in the headline. He didn't write “...to make writing more powerful," the original author did.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#89I appreciate a detail of this author's writing that is not pointed out. It lacks a concluding paragraph. I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you said). I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.
I always try to give my essays horror-movie-style conclusions, which creepily undermine everything that went before.
Re: BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
You enforced speed and lost clarity. You wrote “...to make writing more powerful.” which states nothing of value while “...designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.” tells you precisely that it was designed with the objectives of enforcing speed and enforcing clarity in the specific contexts of [military] reports and [military] emails. With BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise,…
He's referring to expanding the acronym in the headline. He didn't write “...to make writing more powerful," the original author did.
Jesus Christ how did I miss that?
I’ll own that mistake and leave my original comment up unedited as a testimony to my unobservant off the cuff commentary.