Maximum amount of time to edit your post?

The maximum window to edit a post is supposed to be 4 hours. I posted something at 11:30 AM. I attempted an edit at 2:45 PM. That's only 3 hours and 15 minutes. Yet, I get the window that tells me the maximum time to edit a post has been exceeded. What's going on?

I see the time zone is correct in my profile and my time matches the post I just made here.

As far as I know it it says 4 hours but it is 2 hours as it was before the site update.

originally posted by: Dumbass
As far as I know it it says 4 hours but it is 2 hours as it was before the site update.

Even more confusing...

It literally says:

You have exceeded the maximum window of 4 hours allowed to edit your post.

a reply to: Petros312
If you go into edit a couple of minutes after posting, you will see the edit box, and just above it a message which tells you how many minutes are left for you to edit.
This message is counting down from 120 minutes, which is only two hours in the rest of the world.
But ATS is a special universe with 30-minute hours, which explains the discrepancy.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
ATS is a special universe with 30-minute hours, which explains the discrepancy...

Oh now I see. As long as I know it's only 2 hours.

[post deleted]

Just a helpful hint. When editing your post, adding the rest at the end with something like ETA: or Edit to add:, is a nice polite way to go unless you are just fixing spelling/grammar errors. If you change the tone of the post, it's dishonest.

originally posted by: network dude
Just a helpful hint. When editing your post, adding the rest at the end with something like ETA: or Edit to add:, is a nice polite way to go unless you are just fixing spelling/grammar errors. If you change the tone of the post, it's dishonest.

The logical format of this quote:

Claim A: You edited your post in such a way the "tone" differs in some way
Evidence: A copy of the post before editing
Conclusion: You are being dishonest.

Non-sequitur argument. Why? Because even the TONE of a post can and SHOULD be edited for all the following reasons that have nothing to do with dishonesty:

1. your choice of words were too harsh
2. you violated forum decorum in some way that would offend another member
3. you rearranged the order of the information presented
4. you realized within a two hour allowable editing period that you're making a logical fallacy
5. You re-evaluated the contents of a video and realize it's actually NOT relevant to the discussion.

There are many more possible conclusions one can come to about why someone may have edited a post that have NOTHING to do with being dishonest. In fact, in my opinion, more people should indeed be taking advantage of the full two hours to edit. HOW you say something matters just as much as what is said. If more people wold understand this there might be less... oh well, never mind.

[double post again]

a reply to: Petros312

And you've just nailed it.

Editing a post for tonality - changing it from bitter to polite - can be construed as baiting other members into replying and appearing to be problems when they were, in fact, only replying in the same tone as the original post. In cases where you felt your post was too harsh should include a statement to that effect so that replying members do not wind up looking as if they were acting instead of reacting.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Petros312

And you've just nailed it.

Editing a post for tonality - changing it from bitter to polite - can be construed as baiting other members into replying and appearing to be problems when they were, in fact, only replying in the same tone as the original post. In cases where you felt your post was too harsh should include a statement to that effect so that replying members do not wind up looking as if they were acting instead of reacting.

Amen brother! But I just nailed WHAT?

If a member is "baited" into replying to a post that has an impolite tone by using another impolite tone, two wrongs don't make a right. Are you trying to support that nobody should be editing the tone of their original post even when NOT engaging in this tactic that you bring up that I am unaware of?

Are you also trying to support that whenever someone edits the "tone" of the post it's immediately "dishonest?"

a reply to: Petros312

Of the five the first two are addressed by the above, the third and fourth are legitimate concerns that can be dealt with by using the "complain" function in your top bar to request that staff do an edit for you, and the last would be reason to simply alert your own thread, admit you got things wrong, and ask for it's deletion or a substantial edit.

Forget it...

a reply to: Petros312

I dont' recall typing a single word of whatever it is you just said. What I did do is answer your questions about how to handle an edit after the edit window expires and explained why it's poor form to edit for tonality alone.

As for where the rules to the site are, here you go.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Petros312

I dont' recall typing a single word of whatever it is you just said.

WHERE? The post you reference was removed. Hence, whatever I deleted it's retracted. So why are you even addressing it?

originally posted by: Petros312
Forget it...

Actually, on second thought, please explain without the use of sheer rationalization the huge inconsistency between these two conditions at ATS:

1. The very presence of a system that allows for an entire length of 2 hours that allows a member to edit his or her post, along with absolutely no terms and conditions outlining some specific "appropriate" procedure.


2. The explanation by a moderator supporting another ATS member's off-topic response to a thread about how long does a member have to edit a post by claiming a) the editing of a post is always unethical ("dishonest") when the person decides to change the "tone" and b) Of 5 mentioned possible scenarios where someone wants to edit a post, NOT indicative of any kind of baiting tactic to lure a rude response, in every case the appropriate thing to do is to somehow always to allow STAFF to edit your post.

1. above is a fact

2. above is something that is particularly inconsistent with the fact above.

a reply to: Petros312

I was just offering some help to you since you are new here. You shouldn't have taken it as an attack. Unless you feel guilty about something that is.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312
I was just offering some help to you since you are new here. You shouldn't have taken it as an attack.

I'm actually glad you said it now, because with the aid of a moderator there's a huge inconsistency that I noted above between:

1. The very presence of a system that allows for an entire length of 2 hours that allows a member to edit his or her post, along with absolutely no terms and conditions outlining some specific "appropriate" procedure.


2. The explanation by a moderator supporting another ATS member's off-topic response to a thread about how long does a member have to edit a post by claiming a) the editing of a post is always unethical ("dishonest") when the person decides to change the "tone" and b) Of 5 mentioned possible scenarios where someone wants to edit a post, NOT indicative of any kind of baiting tactic to lure a rude response, in every case the appropriate thing to do is to somehow always to allow STAFF to edit your post.

1. above is a fact

2. above is something that is particularly inconsistent with the fact above.

I'm waiting for an explanation.

a reply to: Petros312

If you edit a post, and you either change what you said, or how you said it, and you don't explain why, it's dishonest. It's the main reason people quote a post here. In a few of your posts, instead of answering a following post, you added information to a previous post. That way, you tried to make the following post look petty. It was noticed and the work around was to wait 2 hours before responding to you. In an effort to avoid that kind of thing in the future, and knowing that you are new here, I offered sincere help. If you are going to be around the threads I like, I'd prefer we be able to communicate like grown ups.

If something is said to you that you don't like, U2U that poster with your concerns. Or post directly to that person. Fix it right then. Don't let it fester.

originally posted by: network dude
In a few of your posts, instead of answering a following post, you added information to a previous post. That way, you tried to make the following post look petty. It was noticed and the work around was to wait 2 hours before responding to you. In an effort to avoid that kind of thing in the future, and knowing that you are new here, I offered sincere help. If you are going to be around the threads I like, I'd prefer we be able to communicate like grown ups.

I cannot fathom how you could be so condescending to someone who has pointed out there is a multiplicity of reasons for editing your post, and having 2 hours to do so is the allowable time to do any of these things. You continue a thinly veiled attack on people who want to edit their posts up to a maximum of 2 hours, and you have no authority to declare what is or is not an appropriate edit.

I don't expect the moderator above to respond to the blaring inconsistency I noted ABOVE, but that would be worth reading.

a reply to: Petros312

Woa there thunder! You are free to do anything you like. I sure won't stop you.
Here, read this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It kind of fits what I was trying to say. Since it's someone else saying it, perhaps you won't take it as a personal attack.


I hope for your sake you find a way to thicken up your skin a bit.