Edit time restriction

I think 15 minutes is more than enough time to reread your post and make any necessary changes.
 
I say leave it at 15 seconds.

Our members are more ignorant (here) today than they were four years ago. If these new people are not educated enough to proofread their posts we don't need them.

Wow Chimpie kind of rough on the new guys aren't you?:P
 
I say longer...

This edit abuse problem everyone is wringing their hands about just doesn't happen very much elsewhere (where far far far more intense and angry arguments occur). People see it and call it out. If someone regrets an attack, then they can delete it and that is a GOOD thing. The mods can still deal with it in a punitive manner if they want.

Will edit abuse ever occur? Sure. Will it be used in a positive way the vast majority of the time? Yep. The good outweighs the bad.
 
What about allowing for addendums? It would have a timestamp, but would allow someone who made a remark or comment they now know to be false to add something before getting attacked on it because someone missed a later post 8 pages later where they retract their statment? OR someone who just seraches the form and sees that post but does not scroll all the way to the 9th page to see the addendum?
 
Post Edit History should obviate this problem. Most of the threads where it's needed will already have come to mod attention. If they haven't, I'm sure someone will call the OP on it.

Or I could just pester you with changes and addenda.
 
Not that anyone cares, but I've generally stopped posting because of the ensuing bull that's occurred after a few things that I've posted or replied to.

There's no way to go back, edit, and/or remove (with a note explaining why) content after it's started a giant s***storm, and the I hate being a nuisance going to find mods who may/may-not remove content. That being said, I know who to go talk to now to have content removed, and who not to talk to...

And that's how someone becomes a lurker 'round here.
 
Back
Top