Did you scrape the original of that? It's been edited so I'm sure marlboroza is up to no good here.
Of course 
Nothing spectacular though:Code:
marlboroza
787736
47089069
Other / Meta / Re: Editing posts
I don't remember anyone complained about this, I was curious, that's all. Many times I have tried to post something and while typing 4-5 new posts have been posted, so my thought was if that even happen there is no way to prove it, just like TryNinja said.
I honestly think you are AI
787736
47089069
Other / Meta / Re: Editing posts
I don't remember anyone complained about this, I was curious, that's all. Many times I have tried to post something and while typing 4-5 new posts have been posted, so my thought was if that even happen there is no way to prove it, just like TryNinja said.
I honestly think you are AI
I created my post on "12:39:32 PM" and archived it at "12:40:10 PM" (it took "only" 38 seconds" and the odds of someone copying your post [before you archive it], is close to "zero").
You have made 3435 posts until now. If you would have added 38 seconds to each post, it would have consumed 36 hours extra. That's an aweful amount of time for something this unlikely.or we can just stop giving the 10(maybe 7 or 5 Minute) window to edit the post. Once you edit, timestamp update with new edit timestamp.
Those 10 minutes are based on the assumption that quick edits only fix small mistakes, so the forum assumes that post is what you wanted to post in the first place.Quote
I do not know if Mods has ability to see Drafts, because draft contain every version of your edit unless you have created /modified 100 times.
I don't think they can: Mods can't even see edits, only Admins can.