Leaving "proprietary" info out of AARs

[leozinho]

I often read AARs where the writer intentionally leaves out instructional material and says "This is the instructor's info. If you want it you have to pay for it."

What the hell, I'll just go ahead and quote someone so everyone knows what I'm talking about.

I’ll be intentionally vague here, as 88 Tac put a lot of work into these classes, and they spent a lot of time with the class as a whole. If you want specifics….you’re going to have to pay for them like I did!

<snip>

(I won’t explain what OSHIT means…again it is 88 Tac’s material.)

I feel this is misguided.

1) Reading a cool teaching point from a class only makes me want to go train with that instructor. There's a reason why instructors are putting out youtube videos and "Gunfighter Moments" or Facebook posts. It's to drum up interest in their classes (and also as a public service, but I bet it has a lot more to do with drumming up interest.) If they thought it was cannibalizing class attendance, they wouldn't put those videos out or make those posts.

2) You aren't giving away the keys to the kingdom in a few paragraphs of an AAR. I've trained with Bennie Cooley, Ben Stoeger and Frank Proctor AFTER watching their DVDs. Even their 90 minute to 2 hour DVDs didn't make me say "I've learned all I can from those guys. No need to take their class." Actually, it was the opposite. I could say the same for some of the instructors that have written books. Pat Mac, Pannone, K. Lamb, Stoeger (again), Seeklander, Enos...all of those piqued my interest. (Well, Pannone's was kinda 'meh'.)

3) It's probably not novel and certainly isn't proprietary anyway. It's rare for an instructor to be truly groundbreaking. Sure, some have a nice turn of the phrase that makes it click or light bulbs go off, but that doesn't mean it was proprietary. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Hell, unless the instructor's names is Enos or Leatham, he didn't invent the grip and stance he's using.

4) It goes against the spirit of the forum. We are here to share and learn. Think of some of the instructors here that freely give their time and knowledge. They don't say "You have to come take my class to get that info."

5) If the instructor said not to share info (and I doubt many or any did), then let me know so I can make sure he doesn't get a nickel from me. See number 3.

Just my opinion. Not everyone will agree.

 

[Default.mp3]

I personally simply write my AARs as-is, and then send it back to the instructor for feedback. If they ask me to remove material for OPSEC or whatever, I will, but I won't automatically censor instructional material without being explicitly asked not to post it.

 

[GreenOps]

At the end of my classes, I send out either a detailed list of the drills or a schedule of what was covered. If you come to my class and regurgitate what I taught, then good for you. YOU paid for it...just try to remember me when you make the big league In my classes, I try to give credit to where I learned a drill or a technique.

Even though, I too feel that it is misguided, I will always respect another instructors wishes to not share material, if requested.

I'm not talking about TTPs or "sensitive" information.

 

[Kevin 149]

At the end of my classes, I send out either a detailed list of the drills or a schedule of what was covered. If you come to my class and regurgitate what I taught, then good for you. YOU paid for it...just try to remember me when you make the big league In my classes, I try to give credit to where I learned a drill or a technique.

THIS is a pretty kick-ass bonus, and I will definentely steal it when I start teaching again. And I'll credit you for it!

But I'm not going to post my, and especially not another instructor's, CoF or class notes on the internet!!

It's incumbent on the AAR author to get everything right about the class, and to make sure to differentiate between opinion and fact. I did email back and forth with Kurt several times, as I always do when i write AAR's, simply to make sure I caught and understood everything. And lo and behold, I mis-understood one point and must have been napping because I completely missed a second.

To leozinho, I'm not intending to start an argument at all, this is just my opinion formed from doing this long before it was cool......



"I often read AARs where the writer intentionally leaves out instructional material and says "This is the instructor's info. If you want it you have to pay for it."

What the hell, I'll just go ahead and quote someone so everyone knows what I'm talking about.



I feel this is misguided.
I feel it's professional respect. It's their class, they're the ones who put the work into putting it together, spent hours with all the admin crap, and in this particular case, an instructor away from his family for 3 nights.

1) Reading a cool teaching point from a class only makes me want to go train with that instructor. There's a reason why instructors are putting out youtube videos and "Gunfighter Moments" or Facebook posts. It's to drum up interest in their classes (and also as a public service, but I bet it has a lot more to do with drumming up interest.) If they thought it was cannibalizing class attendance, they wouldn't put those videos out or make those posts.
If an instructor wants to put out his own cool guy videos, that's cool. When my company was up and running I encouraged my students to post AAR's wherever they wanted to, I only asked them to ask me first if anything was less than crystal clear; and to provide me with a link or copy of their AAR.

As a student, I simply feel it's not my place to share to many details. I try to include a couple specific examples of why I liked, or didn't like, the class, facility and/or instructors.

2) You aren't giving away the keys to the kingdom in a few paragraphs of an AAR. I've trained with Bennie Cooley, Ben Stoeger and Frank Proctor AFTER watching their DVDs. Even their 90 minute to 2 hour DVDs didn't make me say "I've learned all I can from those guys. No need to take their class." Actually, it was the opposite. I could say the same for some of the instructors that have written books. Pat Mac, Pannone, K. Lamb, Stoeger (again), Seeklander, Enos...all of those piqued my interest. (Well, Pannone's was kinda 'meh'.)
Agreed, but every instructor puts their own spin on things, thereby "personalizing" it a little. I absolutely steal other instructor's material when I teach, and I always make sure to give credit where credit is due.

3) It's probably not novel and certainly isn't proprietary anyway. It's rare for an instructor to be truly groundbreaking. Sure, some have a nice turn of the phrase that makes it click or light bulbs go off, but that doesn't mean it was proprietary. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Hell, unless the instructor's names is Enos or Leatham, he didn't invent the grip and stance he's using.

4) It goes against the spirit of the forum. We are here to share and learn. Think of some of the instructors here that freely give their time and knowledge. They don't say "You have to come take my class to get that info."
I think it is in perfect balance with the spirit of the forum. I think the basic jist of my entire AAR was, "I like (or hate,) this company and/or this class, definentely got my money's worth, (or not,) here's a couple reasons why I would (or would not,) train with them again, but if you want the entire Course of Fire, that's a different story and you'll have to contact the instructor....

5) If the instructor said not to share info (and I doubt many or any did), then let me know so I can make sure he doesn't get a nickel from me. See number 3.
Never, not even close. I talked to Kurt face to face during class and he encouraged the idea.
Just my opinion. Not everyone will agree."

Just my opinion as well....

 

[voodoo_man]

I intentionally leave pieces out of my AAR's, sometimes really important topics and things like that.

Why?

Two main reasons:

#1 people paid that instructor for that information and knowledge. Posting that information in the public range is not only a usurp of that instructor's product, but it is usually done so against the interests of that particular instructor.

#2 there is always a good amount of knowledge which is simply covered under OPSEC as it should not be in the public domain. CQB is a perfect example of something which should, in my opinion, never be discussed in a public online forum or social media. The last thing anyone wants is some POS reading it and getting a leg up on a LEO or CCW citizen. If you do not believe this happens, I have some news for you...

AAR's are, in my opinion, supposed to encompass the instructors ability to teach, some of that content and what the person writing the AAR got out of the class. No where in that is to post specific information which people should go and see for themselves. I include shooting drills sometimes because they aren't exactly private/OPSEC covered info, especially when the instructor has no issue putting them out there as they are usually part of their standard curriculum.

 

[Wake27]

AAR's are, in my opinion, supposed to encompass the instructors ability to teach, some of that content and what the person writing the AAR got out of the class. No where in that is to post specific information which people should go and see for themselves. I include shooting drills sometimes because they aren't exactly private/OPSEC covered info, especially when the instructor has no issue putting them out there as they are usually part of their standard curriculum.

I agree. In the two or three that I've written, I try to keep it as a true AAR - what I liked and what I didn't. When I'm reading, I don't want to waste my time knowing every single drill that's taught or the specific way of doing things. Just reasons why I should train with him or why I shouldn't. Usually I'll include stuff that I really picked up, but that's more to help other people out if it's something they haven't considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk