I act as an administrator at another financial forum. I think there are sound reasons for limiting edit times, because forum members really do get peeved about trivialities and, as Andy says, huff off after deleting much of the content they posted, turning entire threads into undecipherable Swiss cheese.
That said, that sort of behavior isn't addressed by a 15 minute time limit on edits. The administration's interest in maintaining the integrity of discussions argues for a limit, but the problem is in having week or month or year old posts mangled, not something from earlier in the day.
15 minutes is too short. Forever is too long. Consider something in between.
We use 48 hours at
FWF, which gives members a chance to fix spelling and grammatical errors. It probably lets some sanitize their remarks but that's pretty rare. If someone is involved in a heated argument, it usually won't blow over fast enough for someone to have sober second thoughts and amend the record.
And, when all else fails and the time limit has expired, as ReWahoo says, you can always insert a correction and if necessary an apology.
P.S. I think moderators should not be editing any posts at the request of the original writer. Moderators are not flunkies to do the members' bidding.
.
when necessary with the few trouble-makers and let the rest of us edit. You mods can act out your control obsession at the Forum dungeon with leather outfits, paddles, dog chains and whips (with h05uk as the victim).
