Board Thread:Consensus track/@comment-4814368-20130620230020/@comment-9854979-20130728182324

@Deyvid Petteys;

The video content would not be hosted on YouTube. To put it into the words of JAIbor: "Also, the videos wouldn't be on YouTube, they'd be in our premium video library, so there wouldn't be any overlays for another site." What this means is that we would be able to have privatized, premium service for video hosting. I agree with your point on how text should be able to relay the information from one user to the other; however, the issue lies in that some of these editors use language and words that makes sense to them, rather than a general audience. Some users make the most out of text, while some would enjoy a visual stimulus as a means of achieving their goal. "Commentators" wouldn't exist; the videos would need to be a non-commentary, proffessional type of video that is played in a walkthrough format. Point A to Point B, with no grey areas, if you will. The closest to "commentary" would be maybe (and I mean maybe) have some text detailing the steps of an objective. You might be asking yourself; "Well, that seems a bit redundant - if there's text on-screen, then why have the video's in the first place? The wiki shows details through text." I'm going to refeer back to one of my original points on how everyone sees things a little differently. There are some who are satisfied with just text, some who are satisfied with video content, and some who might just need both. Myself included, I would like to see proffessional walkthroughs, because there were some occasions on where the wiki didn't help me. I don't want to hear someone shouting through their Yeti and making fart jokes while I'm trying to reach an objective. So I can see your points, but I honestly think that if we keep the videos on a focused, objective-based level then the addition to video implimentation would be an asset, rather than a liability.