I train officials to use plain language. Usually I tell them to condense their wording: cut useless introductions, delete tautology, and shorten expressions. For example, in a ideal case a response to a citizen initiative can be shortened from a full page to one sentence without losing the core content. We often do succeed in reaching a consensus about brevity, and the edited text saves time and nerves both for officials and for citizens. However, one question comes up repeatedly: won’t we lose credibility if the issue is presented briefly and in plain language? When an official responds to an initiative with one or two sentences, won’t the originator feel that the issue has not been examined thoroughly? Many in government seem to fear that they will appear not to be doing their jobs unless each reply demonstrates seriousness through sheer length, with an introduction, repetition, and of course long citations of regulations or laws, preferably with other references. Both the reader and the writer should ask if the response is attempting to convince by its reasoning or by its length.