Is Montana a good place for conservatives? (Darby: fit in, where to live)

[406FIRE309]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

406Fire, I am thinking the Montana forum badly needs a moderator.. I would vote for MTSilvertip, as he has been here for a while and has made great and helpful posts for the Montana forum. I think he would be a good candidate to take the helm left behind by ElkHunter. Of course, I understand that he may not have the time to do the mod job.

I agree

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

406Fire, I am thinking the Montana forum badly needs a moderator.. I would vote for MTSilvertip, as he has been here for a while and has made great and helpful posts for the Montana forum.

Good choice. Wait, Silvertip, come back! Why is he running so fast?? Dang, he's already out of sight.

[Elk invited me to the mod squad a while back, but I turned it down... done enough mod work elsewhere already, thanks anyway!]

[406FIRE309]

Reziac would have my vote as well!

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by 406FIRE309

I agree

I disagree.

City-Data forums need moderators to oversee debate, discussion and subject consistency, not temperamental polemicists with no tolerance for any experience or outlook that doesn't mirror their own.

You could agree with that, right?

[Interpol76]

I lived in Montana for a few years and my impression was overall it is a pretty conservative/ libertarian state. Although, the conservatives there (for the most part) tended to be very aggressive, outspoken, extreme, and obnoxious. Quite different than previous conservative areas that I have lived in the past. The liberals there tended to be moderate liberal, and a bit more down to earth in their thinking.

[Threerun]

All we need is a moderator that understands C-D rules and can identify when a thread crosses the line into a political or personal mud-slinging. The latter is grounds for infraction, and honestly should not be tolerated.

That's ALL that is really needed.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Montguy

I disagree.

City-Data forums need moderators to oversee debate, discussion and subject consistency, not temperamental polemicists with no tolerance for any experience or outlook that doesn't mirror their own.

You could agree with that, right?

Ya know what? It's possible to disagree vehemently yet still tolerate others' opinions. And I can attest Elk disagreed vehemently with a good many opinions expressed here, but so long as they were fairly expressed and not personal attacks, they didn't incur his Moderator wrath -- even if he expressed his personal opinion in opposition to whatever.

And that's how it should be. A good mod silences neither others' opinions, nor their own.

[406FIRE309]

Originally Posted by Montguy

I disagree.

City-Data forums need moderators to oversee debate, discussion and subject consistency, not temperamental polemicists with no tolerance for any experience or outlook that doesn't mirror their own.

You could agree with that, right?

You would be a good mod too, Montguy!

I think most of you guys are smart and intelligent. You are all passionate about certain things and can defend your arguments convincingly. As a moderator, your job would be to make sure the rules are followed and things dont go off subject. Although we all see things differently, I'm confident any of you wouldn't let your personal feelings interfere with your duties.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by 406FIRE309

You would be a good mod too, Montguy!

I think most of you guys are smart and intelligent. You are all passionate about certain things and can defend your arguments convincingly. As a moderator, your job would be to make sure the rules are followed and things dont go off subject. Although we all see things differently, I'm confident any of you wouldn't let your personal feelings interfere with your duties.

I disagree that Montguy would be a good moderator as he has gone belligerent on me and others in other threads and made a lot of personal attacks and insults, breaking City Data rules and TOS. Not to mention how he thinks he personally has the authority of administering who is allowed in Montana and who is not, which I find a bit humorous, actually.

The guy shot me down because I expressed views that contradicted with his own and the guy being totally off the deep end in his views, decided to get aggressive and virulent on the threads because he doesn't think people should be allowed to disagree or contradict his infallible views.

I was hoping to meet some of those more "moderate" Montana liberals here, but instead met another ultra left-wing liberal fanatic like I have here in Seattle. I will say that the few liberals I did meet travelling through Montana seemed open-minded, down-to-earth and tolerant of the more conservative types of people as myself. When they heard I had a religion and didn't support the traditional liberal agenda, I didn't get shot down as a Nazi or a inhumane monster as I would by liberals in Seattle or Portland. Even me and this one dreadlocked hippie tye-dye wearing shirt guy I met in Darby, sat down and talked for hours about guns, hunting and about how we both don't trust the government. He also told me about the local mayor and sheriff he said who were crooks and on the take. Being that I don't know all the details about him, I couldn't judge the authenticity of his story. It was entertaining to hear his story and it sounded authentic, but obviously couldn't make a conclusion being an outsider. Me and him hit it off pretty well.

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by Interpol76

I lived in Montana for a few years and my impression was overall it is a pretty conservative/ libertarian state. Although, the conservatives there (for the most part) tended to be very aggressive, outspoken, extreme, and obnoxious. Quite different than previous conservative areas that I have lived in the past. The liberals there tended to be moderate liberal, and a bit more down to earth in their thinking.

Perfect assessment here, Interpol.

Originally Posted by Threerun

All we need is a moderator that understands C-D rules and can identify when a thread crosses the line into a political or personal mud-slinging. The latter is grounds for infraction, and honestly should not be tolerated.

That's ALL that is really needed.

Yes, but on the Montana forum, "personal mud-slinging" is often conflated with the disruption of conformist harmony amongst the same handful of members who have, in the past, dominated most of this forum's threads with their own ideologies and expectations, and yet somehow think they can pretend that none of it was or is political. It was more fun when nobody disagreed with the clique, I can imagine, but a competent moderator is going to tolerate opinions outside of the forum's mainstream.

Originally Posted by Reziac

Ya know what? It's possible to disagree vehemently yet still tolerate others' opinions. And I can attest Elk disagreed vehemently with a good many opinions expressed here, but so long as they were fairly expressed and not personal attacks, they didn't incur his Moderator wrath -- even if he expressed his personal opinion in opposition to whatever.

And that's how it should be. A good mod silences neither others' opinions, nor their own.

I can largely agree with this. I'd estimate that 95% of my comments would have disappeared under the moderation of almost any regular forum member here. I don't think we'll be so lucky as to have another Elkhunter, unfortunately (and I say that as someone he wasn't particularly partial toward).