Last edited

You do, I agree. Also, I was being generous with having it only be once a minute...

I'm pretty new to the site, but I edit my posts pretty frequently. Mostly it's for grammar, spelling, or upon looking back I realize I didn't say what I meant to say clearly. If I couldn't edit posts in forum I would find posting much more burdensome as I'd have to do my drafts in a word document. It would slow down my post time. I'd probably post less reliably. If people are afraid of cheating then I think keeping when and how many times something is edited to be useful. I'm not sure I fully understand the cheating issue. How do you cheat at an RPG? Maybe make it so dice rolls can't be modified but the text can?

That is pretty much what we have already. You can only add more dice rolls to a post, not change existing ones, nor their descriptions.
I think the 'cheating' issues were:
you can delete a post with a bad roll and add another post, hoping for better rolls. I have not encountered this, I tend to play games where 'bad rolls' are not a bad thing and players desire them to add interesting elements to the story, but others might not feel the same.

But also, with specific regard to the topic of 'editing' I have seen players who never 'fail' at important things, but always claim they were doing something trivial when the bad roll happened. Editing the post (or worse, post "TBD" and waiting to see they dice outcome before describing the action) can lead to this.
That last one is a problem. If what you said was not clear and people have read it, you need to make it very clear what you changed so everyone is on the same page.

Many of the 'grammar/spelling' edits would be considered "minor edits" since they might not change the meaning of the post, but clarifying something that was not clear is a "major edit", and everyone needs to go back and read it again... and also need untangled what was said before from what is said now with no easy way to see the exact changes made. Either the edit needs an accompanying list of changes (a 'diff', if you will) or it would have been better to add another post saying "oops, I meant to say...".

This might just be my opinion, but I play with neurodivergent players who struggle a lot with reality and having players 'change reality' by subtly editing post is as major problem for them.

That seems very clunky to me. I know you had said that you can't know everyone you play with so trust can be an issue, but in general isn't it better to give people the benefit of the doubt first and address problems as they arise? If someone changes something several pages back but everyone has moved on how does that help or hinder anyone at all? It seems like editing has a narrow window of relevancy, and then it doesn't matter much to the rest of the game.
That is a valid point. Do you think that this falls under the umbrella of social contract established before the game? You said you have a hard rule about editing in your games. Do you think that adam needs to make that built in to the forum? I think that might cut down on the flexibility of the forums for other players who have different needs or wants.

It's already possible to disable post editing in a specific forum, I believe

Yes, it is a social contract thing. It is also a constant fight. :(
No, it is a per game or per group thing and not a site issue. Correct use of the minor edit checkbox might help.

It is just a pity that so few people are willing to consider the harm and force others to 'out themselves' before they will consider it valid to say 'please don't edit'.

Fortunately I do not suffer this way, but always had rules about editing because things get confusing when various people think different things happened. We can not share a narrative when we are not on the same page. Explicit editing is the only solution I have found to work, so that is now my rule for all games. Only after enforcing this rule did people start admitting that they 'struggle' (i.e. panic or shutdown) over this elsewhere, bringing the problem to my attention.

I have not tried that, minor edits have never been a problem and disallowing edits is not a feature most other places have. It is good that is an option if it is needed.

I had a player notify me of another player cheating by deleting their post with a bad roll and then posting a new post with a better roll. It was the first time (at least that I'm aware of) and I always assumed deleting posts was disabled by default. Is there a way to make that default? Players shouldn't need to be able to delete posts when they can edit them instead, and GMs can delete the post in the rare cases it is an issue.

We can change it on a per forum basis, and can set the default for each game in its Administrative Control Panel (top right of game forum).

Maybe this (no delete) should be the default? Seems like an issue we should discuss more in its own thread.

It seems like having the ability to delete posts be turned off for players as the default would nullify cheating.
My neurodivergence would make it very difficult for me to not be able to fix something I perceived as an error that disrupts continuity. Since neurodivergence is not a monolith (I'm quite sure there is no such thing as a group of humans that is monolithic, even though that is often the default way of viewing groups of humans), I don't think there is any way around talking to the individuals of your group about what they need. There are people with mutually exclusive needs and they just may not be able to play together.

I can tell you right now it would be very difficult for me to play in your no editing group. I'd sit on posts and revise them many times in a word document before posting and would post less frequently and would lag behind. It would ruin my verisimilitude and I'd have a lot less fun, and the games would just become points of stress to the point which I would just stop playing.

Getting to the main point I personally don't know if a minor/major edit button would help as that is up to the person editing and one person's minor edit may be another's major. I think the only thing that would really help in that regard is being able to see a log of what was edited, but I imagine that would be difficult to implement.

Which is why my rule is that edits need to be explicit. If you need to edit something, make sure everyone knows about the edit and knows what changed, then the group can know to work around it.
That would be ideal. It would solve all these problems. It might be a thing we can aim for in v2.