Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Uber]

*waits for explosion from Deevil*

I don't know why there'd be an explosion. The analogy provided was not relevant as the scenario does not equate. For starters, the seasoned seargent clearly does not share the same rank as the green LT and would have no reason to believe they'd be in any real command over an officer regardless of experience.

Carter and Mitchell are the same rank. Carter has the experience, was the CO and was written out of her story arc so the new hero could lead.

[Uber]

This. Is. A. PG. Board.

REally.

It is.

Right?

(this is just a reminder to myself, so I don't say what I need/want to say).

*headdesk* It's just not fair!

And that's why we have PM's my friend.

[Deevil]

*waits for explosion from Deevil*

What, has someone plated C4 on me without my knowledge?

That'd be a new experience for me. Never had that happen before.

[Lightsabre]

Actually, Mitchell is technically in charge of SG-1. That is FACT. He was given the task of choosing his team and command of it. It's HIS team. He just wanted to work with the best so he "got the band back together". The fact that he sometimes defers to Sam is not evidence that he's not in charge. It's the sign of good judgement to defer to someone with more knowledge and experience in some situations. If you trust your team that much, the formal chain of command isn't so formal anymore, and your team's judgement isn't in question, so what they say or do is almost as good as if you said it.

I've been in the military and that couldn't be more true. More often than not, a sargent will end up telling a new LT. what to do until the LT. is "broken in". During that time, the SGt. ends up making a lot of decisions because he has the experience and the LT. then "gives the order to do so".

It just sounds like you have little knowledge of how things work in the military. To be that rigid with command is dangerous and foolish. That's why there are exceptions when an order can be disobeyed. It's also better for morale if the team knows that their leader won't blindly do something, but will instead get help if the situation calls for it. What you see on screen is just a reflection of that. If Mitchell questions his position as commander, it's his own insecurity that is the problem. So, if you question his authority based on his actions, it's not that your interpretations are necessarily wrong, but maybe you are just unfamiliar with how that type of environment works.

Then there is the possibility that you just don't like Mitchell and want Jack back. Hey, I prefer Jack too, but that time is done and it's now Mitchell's team.

*waits for explosion from Deevil*

[Deevil]

ROFL

Oh this post is ripe for some really great response that's right at the tip of my tongue.

Not. Going. There.

This. Is. A. PG. Board.

REally.

It is.

Right?

(this is just a reminder to myself, so I don't say what I need/want to say).

*headdesk* It's just not fair!

[Uber]

And here I was ready to send in the CSI team to check for BBQ sauce stains....

ROFL

Oh this post is ripe for some really great response that's right at the tip of my tongue.

Not. Going. There.

*urges self to stop thinking about Jack O'Neill being lathered in edible sauces*

Uh...oh yeah. The topic. I believe Carter should lead SG-1.

[OutThere]

OY. I didn't mean it like THAT.

Although now that you mention it...

*ponders*

And here I was ready to send in the CSI team to check for BBQ sauce stains....

[Uber]

Ya know, it's moments that this that reminds me that this is a PG board. Argh!!

OY. I didn't mean it like THAT.

Although now that you mention it...

*ponders*

[Deevil]

You know, we don't see them in the same room together anymore so you may have a point here.

WAIT...we don't see him at ALL, do we??? Maybe she ATE him.

Ya know, it's moments that this that reminds me that this is a PG board. Argh!!

[Deevil]

Actually, Mitchell is technically in charge of SG-1. That is FACT. He was given the task of choosing his team and command of it. It's HIS team. He just wanted to work with the best so he "got the band back together". The fact that he sometimes defers to Sam is not evidence that he's not in charge. It's the sign of good judgement to defer to someone with more knowledge and experience in some situations.

What about Sam and Mitchell being in the lead of different missions? Or how about the fact that I personally haven't seen Mitchell do anything that reinforces his leadership? The fact is when SG-1 reformed, the entire dynamics changed? And therefore, it's not a stretch to question the leadership.

So, if you question his authority based on his actions, it's not that your interpretations are necessarily wrong, but maybe you are just unfamiliar with how that type of environment works.

Interesting supersition. Very wrong. But interesting. I question his leadership because there appears to be no leadership. There is no chain of command on the team.

But if that rationalisation works for you, more power to ya. It just does nothing for me, personally.

Then there is the possibility that you just don't like Mitchell and want Jack back. Hey, I prefer Jack too, but that time is done and it's now Mitchell's team.

My opinion on Mitchell's command has nothing to do with Jack. Actually, my impressions on Mitchell's leadership has nothing to do with anything else but the way it is portrayed on screen... And it is portrayed badly, and leaves me questioning. Or maybe not questioning; I outright do not see Mitchell as the leader of SG-1. And if I am meant too, I would rather them portray him as at least somewhat competant and confident in it.

[Uber]

Sam is Jack?! How'd that happen?

You know, we don't see them in the same room together anymore so you may have a point here.

WAIT...we don't see him at ALL, do we??? Maybe she ATE him.

[OutThere]

Then there is the possibility that you just don't like Mitchell and want Jack back. Hey, I prefer Jack too, but that time is done and it's now Mitchell's team.

Sam is Jack?! How'd that happen?

[Freekzilla]

If it's so damned obvious, why are so many people finding it hard to believe or see Mitchell as being in charge? There is plenty of evidence through actions that Mitchell isn't in charge. We interpret things differently... There was nothing said about anyones position on SG-1, and that's where the majority of issues lie.

And I counter that it did. See, we saw exactly the same thing, and we got 2 different impressions from it. Is it your ascertion that your position is correct, and mine is wrong?

No, it's not really. If Mitchell feels the need to ask about it, there must be a question about his position.

I disagree.

Uh huh. I dissgree with you, entirely. The nature and creation of a sheild can change, simply because the idea for the technology can be more easily identified. To have someone in command, and not show them in command, and not show anyone on that team subordinate to them, makes me question that command. It is my right to do so, and it is not wrong. We just see things differently, interpret them differently.

No, it's called a difference in interpretation. I would be wrong to say that Jack is really a female Lt. But I am not wrong is asserting that through actions on the show, I do not see Sam as Mitchell's 2IC, nor do I see Mitchell in charge.

It isn't a question of right or wrong here, but a question of a variety of opinions, where we are using different canon evidence as back-up for our opinions. So how about we cut out the right and wrong crap?

Actually, Mitchell is technically in charge of SG-1. That is FACT. He was given the task of choosing his team and command of it. It's HIS team. He just wanted to work with the best so he "got the band back together". The fact that he sometimes defers to Sam is not evidence that he's not in charge. It's the sign of good judgement to defer to someone with more knowledge and experience in some situations. If you trust your team that much, the formal chain of command isn't so formal anymore, and your team's judgement isn't in question, so what they say or do is almost as good as if you said it.

I've been in the military and that couldn't be more true. More often than not, a sargent will end up telling a new LT. what to do until the LT. is "broken in". During that time, the SGt. ends up making a lot of decisions because he has the experience and the LT. then "gives the order to do so".

It just sounds like you have little knowledge of how things work in the military. To be that rigid with command is dangerous and foolish. That's why there are exceptions when an order can be disobeyed. It's also better for morale if the team knows that their leader won't blindly do something, but will instead get help if the situation calls for it. What you see on screen is just a reflection of that. If Mitchell questions his position as commander, it's his own insecurity that is the problem. So, if you question his authority based on his actions, it's not that your interpretations are necessarily wrong, but maybe you are just unfamiliar with how that type of environment works.

Then there is the possibility that you just don't like Mitchell and want Jack back. Hey, I prefer Jack too, but that time is done and it's now Mitchell's team.

[Lightsabre]

no - when asked about this Joe Mallozzi specifically said that Carter reports to Landry - she does not report to Mitchell.

But writer comments are NOT canon. See above RE: Puddlejumper shields.

You can state your opinion/argument/debate all you want that will not change the fact that it has never been said in canon on the show that Carter reports to Mitchell or that Carter is subordinate or 2IC to Mitchell.

But it IS stated in canon that Mitchell leads.
Now, if Mitchell leads, and Carter is on the team....
See where i"m going with this?

I again defy you to find where this is stated in canon - Landry giving the command of a team that exists of SG-me to the "me" does not make your opinion fact. Mitchell handing out patches does not make your opinion fact.

No, but Landry telling Mitchell he's commander of SG-1 DOES.
You can blather on with teh SG-Me crap all you like. It doesn't change fact.

It has been stated by one of the people who is in charge of the show, deals with the entire making of the show, that Carter reports directly to Landry and that there is co-command

And again, I say to thee, 'writer comments are not canon'.
{MOd Snip}

- again I defy you to find anywhere in canon where it is stated that Carter is subordinate to Mitchell or reports to Mitchell.

Defy me all you like, the facts are there and given those facts, YOUR argument cannot be true.

Your argument about Hammond and O'Neill does not hold water because it was clearly stated in fact that Sam reported to Jack so it is impossible to make the argument you are attempting to make.

How so?
My argument about Hammond and O'Neill is a direct rebuttal about your point of reporting.
Again, I'll say it. If those facts are true, they directly invalidate your argument.
I'll go over it again for you.
You maintain Carter reports to Landry. Why?
Because she takes things to him without going to Mitchell.
However, she did the same thing with Hammond.
for you to be correct, this would mean she reported directly to Hammond.
We know she reported to Jack, as you say, it's a fact she did.
Therefore, you are wrong and this does not prove that Carter reports directly to Landry.
{Mod Snip}

You, based on what you see on screen, believe that Carter is subordiante to Mitchell and is 2IC - I, based on exactly the same thing, perceive differently adding in the fact that one of TPTB has clearly stated that Carter reports to Landry and there is co-leadership.

The difference is, I can back my side up with canon. I've not seen much of that from you.

Fact - Landry gave command of a non-existent team called SG-1 to Mitchell.

Yup.

Once the original members of SG-1 returned there was absolutely no evidence or verbal confirmation of who was in charge.

No need, as Mitchell, in the very next ep, calls himself 'Leader'.

Fact - there is evidence based on what the people that write, produce and direct the show intended coming directly from them -- co-command -- and there is evidence of co-command all over the place in S9 and S10.

Not fact. Not shown on screen.

I am not sure at all why you believe that my opinion is argument. I have quite clearly stated my opinion based on what I have seen in the show - there is no argument. You may be looking for an argument I am not. I am simply stating my opinion of what is in the show based on the history of the show and what we have been told and what we have been shown if you do not understand that than I am sorry but I cannot hlep you.

You obviously do not understand argument as I am using it. Try subsitituing the word hypothesis and see if it makes more sense.

Again, no. Landry gave command of a non-existent SG-1 to Mitchell. As stated above my opinion based on what I have been shown is that since Sam, Daniel and Teal'c rejoined SG-1 there has been no factual basis provided on which to determine who is in charge of SG-1. I have been told by one of TPTB that there is co-command. I have seen Carter in charge and I have seen Mitchell in charge. I have seen Carter report to Landry but not to Mitchell. I have seen Carter, Daniel and Teal'c all say what they are going to do and go do it - no orders, no approvals necessary - they know what to do and they do it. I have not seen one shred of evidence that Carter reports to Mitchell, is subordinate to Mitchell or is 2IC of SG-1 - all of your "evidence" is based on your perceptions of what you see.

No, it's based on facts and the fact they have not been contradicted.

[Uber]

I love how something I say can be interpreted as an insult, so then the pro-samer must insult Mitchell.

I'm not sure you'll understand this because you seem to want to equate pro-Sam to pro-leadership or even anti-Mitchell...but I'll try. The fact that I like Sam has nothing to do with why I think she should STILL be the leader of the team. Some pro-Sam people want Mitchell to lead. Some pro-Mitchell people want Sam to lead. They are not ==.

And how exactly did I "insult" Mitchell there? By calling him a novice? HE IS A NOVICE comparatively speaking. That's not an opinion...that's a fact. The part about him not apparently having any skill leading a ground force is and has always been my conclusion drawn by what I've been shown. And please remember, this is how he's supposed to be. Cooper enjoys writing him as the "intergalactic screw up."

I simply meant, rules are being bent becuase she is such a hero. Because of the things she done and things she knows.
I don't really see how that has anything to do with what you wrote, Im simply saying that Carter is being given leeway others wouldn't.

And I simply meant she shouldn't have to be given leeway. It was her team to begin with and the writers contrived a convoluted expanse of events to explain why the novice ultimately ended up in a leadership position on the team.

Who said anything about political connections.
Please see above for explanation of the coment.

I understood what you meant. My statement stands as is.

I was actaully agreeing with you.

That's nice that we agree on something.

Uber, be serious. The entire thing is contrived, it's a tv show.

I'm being entirely serious and of course it's contrived. But most contrivances mesh well enough that we don't question them. I can accept the notion of travel to other galaxies, snake like parasites and voracious mechanical bugs. This one is insipid.

AT had an absence, they wanted to move Carter out of command, it all works out.

Now we're starting to get to it. AT had an absence that they knew about and could have come up with whatever set of circumstances to explain why. Captured, injured, etc. LOTS of things. But those would have meant she'd resume command when she returned.

But...THEY WANTED TO MOVE CARTER OUT OF COMMAND. That's getting closer to an explanation as opposed to a recitation of what happened onscreen. So, who exactly does it work out for then? Ah, I see. The PTB who wanted to push Mitchell to the fore by taking away Carter's most logical story arc.

My question continues to be WHY.

As far as I know, the writers never meant for Carter to be gone permenently, but they did mean for Mitchell to be the new leader.

Of course they never meant for Carter to be gone permanently. They knew exactly when Amanda was returning to the set. And CLEARLY they wanted Mitchell to be the new leader.

My question continues to be WHY.

I fail to see the problem with this. Or how it related to what I wrote.

Of course you don't see a problem with this because you don't like Carter in command and therefore have no reason to understand why those of us who do would be perturbed that the writers took it away from her to give it to the new character. And you don't understand how it relates to what you wrote because you didn't understand what I wrote.

As I said, if there is an argument that people feel he should lead because he was given lead, then that fits under the title of the thread.

And I said, I don't need a recitation of the script. I want to know WHY the writers took Carter's command away. Explaining how it happened on the screen does nothing to explain the motivations for the choice to do so.

I used it to prove my point that he's in charge. And it does, albeit empirically.

And then there are examples of Sam leading the team. So? All you've proven is that there are times when he's in the lead. We already knew this.

I never attempted to use it to prove his leadership skills.

*withholds snarky comment DYING to emerge*

And you didn't actually rebut the argument.

Consider it rebutted. They've both had leadery moments, thus proving by empirical evidence that both are "in charge." At least as of Pegasus Project.

Not much of one, but it does exist.

I don't see it.