Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Lightsabre]

And therein lies the problem on OH so many levels.

He is not their superior in any shape or form (and no, his conveniently being written as serving more time in grade than Sam doesn't make him superior to her at all). They run circles around him in experience and skill.

Sorry, disagree.
They do not. Mitchell lacks specific offworld experience, however, he is a seasoned military officer and his credentials there stack up well against Sam's and better, in some places, than Daniel and Teal'c.
He has been made team lead, which makes him their superior. You cannot get around that.

And he is a seasoned officer (a command officer? not getting that at all)...but he's a seasoned pilot. He can command F302's like no one's business and should go back to doing that. But he is in no way a capable command field officer...I've certainly seen nothing that screams of his natural leadership abilities or logically shows why he's in a leadership position on a field team. Frankly he should have gotten what he wanted to begin with...which is to serve under Sam and learn from them. Instead, he comes off as impetuous, unwise and tragically overconfident to the point of stupidity. A walking, talking plot device. A Marty Stu who was award a CMOH for doing his job and got his dream job and then some because he knows the right people.

Well, this is just character bashing. MItchell has shown his leadership abilities on many levels. The above is the same as me saying that Sam is a better scientist than leader, so she should head back to the lab and let a real leader take her place.
(Note: I have NOT made this argument before. I have said, in the real world, Sam would not be allowed on the team due to her tech skills.)
If you want to argue the most experienced person should lead, there are many full colonel's in the SGC who have experience equal or close to Sam's and do not have the disavantage of having to split their attention between a specialist role and leader.
One of them should lead, in that case.

And while SG-1 is in the business of backing each other up, usually they have to save each others' butts as the result of the logical flow of the story...of them doing what they're doing as the best of the best, not the result of one of their own doing something so completely stupid and irresponsible as to needlessly put the team in danger.

Bull. What about the ep where Teal'c shoots down Tannin? His actions landed him and Jack in hot water and Sam and Daniel had to pull their butts out of it.
Sam's actions in 'The First COmmandment' landed her in hot water and the others had to save her. THose are two examples, right off the top of my head, of cases where one person's action has required the team to pull them out of the fire.

Mitchell doesn't have the right to act as though he can ignore Teal'c or Sam or Daniel when they urge him to pay attention to them. They know what they're doing...he doesn't. And if he doesn't know that he needs to give more weight to the advice of those he works with then that goes to prove he simply is not cut out for a leadership position of this kind.

Mitchell does know what he's doing. And he didn't ignore them. He listened to their arguement(Which was basically, 'your an idiot' and 'you don't look like a drug dealer'), then he made the decision. THis shows leadership ability. Later, he apologised for putting them there. What did Daniel say? "THat's ok' and 'It happens more than you'd think'.
Not 'well, if you'd listened to us...'. Seems this famous disdain for Mitchell wasn't evident when Daniel told him it was all good.

[Lightsabre]

:sigh: I have never called anyone here a sock-puppet, ignorant, sexist, or an idiot. These are just lies.

That is really offensive. Try reading the post. I said 'Your side of the argument', meaning anyone who has argued pro-sam. NOT YOU specifically.
I told you and MG, who were complaining about MY posts, to look at your own side before you claim bias.
Please stop calling me a liar. It's incredibly offensive.

I remember someone else mentioning a sockpuppet - can't remember who said it and I think it's been deleted because a search has come up negative. Now - ignorant, sexist, idiot - no, now that I skim back over the thread, I'm having troubling finding any examples of anyone calling you those, let alone my doing so, so that's interesting, isn't it?

Yes, Suse accused me of being Ryan and called Ryan a sock puppet. MG agreed. Again, I did not say who had posted said accusations and insults, merely that your side had posted them. If you can't find said offensive posts, could it possibly be that a mod has deleted them? No, I'm sure the far more reasonable explanation is that I'm just lying.

[
Hey, and guess what... I'm sure MG (that's minigeek?) can speak for MG's self - but I can't find any posts from MG here which call you or Ryan this stuff either! Waddya know? Yes, I spent a few minutes trawling and couldn't find them.

Wow? Your point? It WAS said. And not just to or about me. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[
Yep, I know you're lying about me, and your accusations against mini are looking suspect so far as my trawl went. But, if you'd kindly put up links to posts in which either of us calls you "an idiot" or "a sexist" or "ignorant", that'll be awesome.

Which part of 'look at your own side of the argument' was most confusing??
Please recant this. It's offensive to accuse some one of lying and it's even more offensive to demand proof from me and claim I am lying if I cannot provide it when relevant material may have been deleted.
IF you don't believe me however, I don't really care. Mod posts were made on several of the issues I highlighted. However, I never, not once, accused you and MG of making ALL the insults, I said, quite plainly, that your side of the argument had made them.

[
As for debating skills and logic - it is legitimate to identify flawed logic and common debating fallacies in a debate. That you can't appreciate your difficulties is simply symptomatic. But I'll point to the fact that you just accused me of calling you the things above falsely as something you might want to work on - getting caught red-handed telling big porkies doesn't do much for your credibility in any debate, Lightsabre. It is a most inadvisable tactic.[/COLOR]

I. DID. NOT. LIE.

I have not been spewing any hatred. And as you know perfectly well that I am not a Cam-hater but a Cam-liker who participates regularly on the "Cameron Appreciation and Discussion" thread where you also post - so you can't have missed it - well, I rest my case about you making things up. Thanks for proving that beyond all doubt.

YEs, I remember that. After your initial post, where about 5 members of the thread had to tell you to knock it off or take off, you posted some insightful stuff about Mitchell. It proves nothing, however
I post on the Sam thread, but people still call me a sam-hater.

[

When you red someone the post for which you red them is displayed in their list. That zat-humour post was the one you dinged me for, no question.

Yes, and I supplied a reason. Not simply because you posted on the topic.

[
oh good grief

edit: Btw, Lightsabre, I've tickled you back - with short poetic commentary and a grinning smilie - I thought it would be rude not to, you know? I wouldn't want you to think I'm the sort of person who just rolls over and falls asleep without... uh... 'returning the favour' And I want you to know how very, very much I appreciate it being you... it was delightful, and memorable, and the forum moved for me, really. I'll always be grateful that it was you who popped my little red-ding cherry, honey.

Hmm, well if you absoloutly have to play tit-for-tat and red rep me, go right ahead. I really don't care about rep, so feel free to red me all you like.
However, doing it retaliation is REALLY childish. I had an issue with your post and I used a legitimate way to express that. YOu are simply trying to get 'revenge'. But please, feel free if it makes you feel better.
And as I asked before, can we keep this out of the thread. I can't imagine this is relevant or interesting or important enough to be here.
It only involves us and quite frankly, had I known you'd go so nuts about it, I never would have done it.
I should say sorry to everyone who's had to read throught this 'red rep' crap, I didn't intend it to become a saga.

[Lightsabre]

Teal'c has a pink bar on the poll. I bet he's wondering why he has to be Mr Pink

Teal'c is comfortable enough in his masculinity to wear pink.
Of course, the fact he can kill you with one hand if you laugh at him helps.

[the dancer of spaz]

Sorry, Dancer, I have to stop you right there. Mitchell, be he lead or co-lead, is still in charge of the team. THe others ARE his subordinates. Despite their greater experience, they are still his subordinates. This cannot be gotten around. Rule by comittee, esp in battle, simply does not work. Daniel and Teal'c and Sam(if co-lead is not in effect) answer to Mitchell in the field. They are his subordinates.
IT's funny, I wonder if you'd accept this 'no one's in charge' scenario if it was Carter in charge?

First of all, despite Mitchell's leading or co-leading, he does not have the experience that Daniel and Teal'c has. Daniel and Teal'c, because they're not in the military, are not held to any military regulations, beyond that of their own loyalty to the program. And, of course, the characters do not treat him with the respect they did Jack, because he's NOT Jack, and he's NOT their superior. They would not continue to treat him that way if he was.

If Sam is not co-leading the team with him, she's still not his subordinate,

Spoiler:

which TPTB have evidently realized, judging by the upcoming scene between Cameron and Landry

, and he can't just order her around.

And, you know, it's funny. I've said multiple times that Sam, Daniel and Teal'c were all equals in Season 8, and that Sam was the "on paper" leader, simply because they were such a well-oiled machine at the time, and Sam was the only military officer on the team. But if you want to make this into something it's not, go right ahead.

Mitchell listened. He didn't agree. We've been over this. The other 3 have some blame in those events too. Once they saw Mitchell would do it, they should have helped him plan. Then it's less likely it would blow up. Mitchell is in charge. He gets to decide the actions they take. The others do not. Once Mitchell has decided, the others should bend their efforts to making it sucessful.

SG-1 has worked miracles in the past, but there's only so far three people can go. Mitchell barely listened, and he didn't even try to understand where they were coming from. And you know what happpened? They were right. The producers of this show are making some kind of statement here. I'm not quite sure what it is, but I do know one thing: They are NOT placing blame on the three original characters in any way. Everything that happens, happens because of Mitchell's actions, not the rest of SG-1's lack of action. In fact, they're the ones who end up helping in the end.

If Sam, Daniel and Teal'c were meant to be blamed for not catering to Mitchell's whim, something would've been said about it. Even Cameron would've said something along the lines of, "Well if you guys had AT LEAST helped me out here..." or Landry would say something. But nothing is said. All they do is show Cameron do his thing, and the rest of his team react in kind - and normally they're annoyed or confused.

Constantly? I can think of twice. In 20 eps.

You know, you keep saying that, and I've gotta wonder if I should just start quoting myself here.

Prototype - Cameron messed with alien technology that he couldn't even read; released Khalek.
You can blame Daniel for "messing with it first," but there are two problems with that theory. One, Daniel can read Ancient text, and we've never seen him make a mistake in that regard. He's been portrayed as knowing it backwards and forwards. Two, Cameron, if he's to be the leader and is to be respected as one, needs to lead by example. He can't have his behavior or his attitude excused simply because "the others guys do it." That behavior is not indicative of a competent team leader.

Collateral Damage - Cameron went off alone with Alien Chick, placing himself in a situation where the rest of SG-1 didn't know where he was, and couldn't watch his back.
Luckily for Cameron, the government's morals were all skewed, otherwise for all he knew - like Sam warned him - they could've executed him right then and there. But it's not reasonable for us to assume that Cameron knew that. He made a big mistake of going alone on a strange planet, in the hopes of getting some, without telling his team. It's not his fault that the woman was murdered, of course, but it IS his fault that he put himself in that position unnecessarily. Again, if the government had been any different, it's quite possible that the rest of SG-1 would've never seen or heard from Cameron again. These are risks that the leader of SG-1 shouldn't make. Communication is key, and if Cameron was really the sole leader of the team, he would've been required to tell them where he was going. As it is, even as co-leader, he wasn't thinking with the head on his shoulders. SG-1 was then bound by their own loyalty (and orders by Landry) to ensure that Cameron was taken care of, while at the facility.

Stronghold - Cameron runs off on his own, heedless of the suggestions made by the only CO of the mission.
There's really nothing else to say here. Cameron shouldn't have run off on his own and expected to take care of business on his own. This is the irrational/hothead mentality that he had been berating himself for not an hour prior to the mission, but somehow he managed to justify the actions once again in the heat of battle. If Sam and Daniel had not come when they had, Cameron would've been blasted. And even IF the Jaffa hadn't found him, he would've had no way of getting up to the ship, as Sam was the only one who could work the crystals. Not only did she show that she can handle the tactical side - which was telling Cameron that he could go up there alone, which allowed her the op to stay with the rest of the troops outside (*cough* plot device *cough*) - but she also handled the technical side, by taking care of the rings. If the team leader can't follow orders when he's been told explicitly who is in charge of the mission, we can't really expect his "subordinates" to do the same, now can we?

Off The Grid - The team is told to "stay under the radar," but Cam takes this as an opportunity to role play with thugs and drug dealers.
Nope, it's not his fault the gate was beamed away. But what were they doing when they saw that the gate was being beamed away? They were defending themselves, outnumbered, from a group of planet-savvy, armed men who eventually overcame them. Why were they running for their lives at that time? Because Cameron insisted upon over-hyping his "role," and refused to stay under the radar. His plan had OTT written all over it, his more experienced team members told him so, he disregarded it, and almost got them killed for it. SG-1 got him out of the pinch the first time, but it was The Odyssey's phenomenal timing that saved them all.

The Scourge - Cameron didn't know about the CR-91 protocol that The Odyssey would be forced to enact.
No biggie. Everyone forgets minor protocol details from time to time. But it's a good thing someone remembered this "minor" protocol detail, and it's a good thing she was around to tell them about it. Otherwise, they would've assumed that they would be OK, and would've been killed once The Odyssey arrived in orbit around the planet. The team leader cannot forget details like this. The release of neurotoxins, followed by a "salvage operation of the Gamma site?" Team leaders need to know these details. And once they're told these details, they need to remember them. This isn't just about science (which really Sam would only know a bit about, considering its a biochemical), this is about knowing all of the angles of the problem, so you can make the right decision. If it had been up to Cameron's assessment of the problem, they would've stayed in the cave for another hour or so, which would have surely resulted in their deaths.

Arthur's Mantle - Cameron is "out of phase," and decides that that's the perfect opportunity to gain intel, even though he'd have no way of getting back through the Stargate once he received it (couldn't touch the DHD), and he'd have no way of communicating with anyone but the one other person who is "out of phase."
Cameron is the kind of character who likes to be doing things. When he's got an idea in his head, it's hard to shake it out. It's that kind of stubbornness that makes him a great addition to the team. However, the short-sightedness of his ideas has proven to be more of a hindrance. In this case, thanks to yet another plot device, Cameron and Sam happened to shift into the exact same phase as Teal'c when he enacted the crazy Sodan tech. Of course, there was no way for Cameron or Sam to know that. And, of course, there was no way for them to know that the Ancient tech in Sam's lab would have a "subspace link" (they just lurve to pop out those plot devices, don't they?). But, all was well, because Cameron was able to lead a hungy, crazy Sodan through the woods towards his demise. Whatever. Can I get my ticket back to reality, please?

There's nothing bad with Camelot, except that you once again see how the rest of the team feels about his gung-ho mentality. We got a non-verbal peak in Babylon, a more forthright one with "New guy!" in Prototype, obvious annoyance by Sam and Daniel in Off The Grid and Arthur's Mantle, a hint at Teal'c's secret none-too-gentle desires in Ripple Effect and later Arthur's Mantle, and a nice little growl from Teal'c in the season finale.

These are not the actions of a group of people who wholly respect the guy as their leader. As a friend? Sure! As their moral equal? Absolutely. But certainly not as their superior. And only blaming them for their responses to Cameron's behavior is a weak argument at best. They treated him with respect, until he started acting the way he has. I think they were willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

True. You can support this with canon. Some of your language was fairly emotive however.
And I really don't see the relevance of the other growling at him. He has been shoved into command of a very tight knit team. There is likely to be a long period before he is accepted by them.

Teal'c's growl, and Sam's and Daniel's subsequent laughter all came after Cameron showed that he was really itching to swordfight again. Teal'c later said that his "overconfidence" wasn't such a good idea. He was not amused, and Sam and Daniel knew it.

Jonas was shoved into a tight-knit group. He didn't have command, of course, but the situations surrounding his entrance were just as emotionally charged (both in the show and within the fandom). The guy could NOT catch a break. It was only after they'd shown him the ropes, so to speak, that he actually started to get respect as a friend, and as a team member.

Cameron, if he really does deserve to be the leader, should not have to prove himself in the field, because he should know what the heck he's doing long before they step through that gate. He shouldn't be making plans up on the fly, and he shouldn't be behaving like the basic laws of reality don't apply to him, simply because of his earnest wing-and-a-prayer take on things.

[Uber]

Spaz, you're 100% right. I'm not going to bother quoting you because I agree with it all and it would take up too much space. But that's my answer to Lightsabre's response to me.

I will add though that calling Mitchell a Marty Stu is not character bashing. It is sadly a fair characterization of a character that's been crammed like a square peg into SG-1.

The whole leadership scenario is crap and most people know it. The notion of him leading the team...even in name only...is a complete joke and it ruins what could have been a fun character.

And if the CMOH wasn't a clear indication of his "Marty Stu"ness, I don't know what is.

[Lightsabre]

First of all, despite Mitchell's leading or co-leading, he does not have the experience that Daniel and Teal'c has. Daniel and Teal'c, because they're not in the military, are not held to any military regulations, beyond that of their own loyalty to the program. And, of course, the characters do not treat him with the respect they did Jack, because he's NOT Jack, and he's NOT their superior. They would not continue to treat him that way if he was.

No one has ever equated experience with being superior. I should point out I'm using superior in the sense of 'superior officer' ie, the one in charge.
Mitchell is their superior officer(yes, I know they aren't military), you just cannot discount that.

If Sam is not co-leading the team with him, she's still not his subordinate,

Spoiler:

which TPTB have evidently realized, judging by the upcoming scene between Cameron and Landry

, and he can't just order her around.

Sorry, wrong again. If she's co-leading, she IS his subordinate for missions he leads, he's hers for missions she leads.
If there's no co-lead, then she IS his subordinate.
Again, you cannot get around it.

And, you know, it's funny. I've said multiple times that Sam, Daniel and Teal'c were all equals in Season 8, and that Sam was the "on paper" leader, simply because they were such a well-oiled machine at the time, and Sam was the only military officer on the team. But if you want to make this into something it's not, go right ahead.

We were doing so well, actually comminicating, sharing different viewpoints. Then this.
Well in the interests of peace, I'll just say there is always a need for a clear leader and team members are NOT free agents.

SG-1 has worked miracles in the past, but there's only so far three people can go. Mitchell barely listened, and he didn't even try to understand where they were coming from. And you know what happpened? They were right. The producers of this show are making some kind of statement here. I'm not quite sure what it is, but I do know one thing: They are NOT placing blame on the three original characters in any way. Everything that happens, happens because of Mitchell's actions, not the rest of SG-1's lack of action. In fact, they're the ones who end up helping in the end.

Sorry, what?
The producers are making a statement? What is it? They hate Mitchell? If they didn't like him, they would get him fixed, not run him into the ground.
I think you are confusing the writers with the producers and I'm sure you are reading way too much into one scene.

If Sam, Daniel and Teal'c were meant to be blamed for not catering to Mitchell's whim, something would've been said about it. Even Cameron would've said something along the lines of, "Well if you guys had AT LEAST helped me out here..." or Landry would say something. But nothing is said. All they do is show Cameron do his thing, and the rest of his team react in kind - and normally they're annoyed or confused.

Again, what?
This just doesn't make sense.

You know, you keep saying that, and I've gotta wonder if I should just start quoting myself here.

Well you could I suppose.

Prototype

However, no one pulled his butt from the fire. Your analysis of the character may or may not be correct, however, he did not get 'saved' in this ep.

Collateral Damage -

Yet again, he did NOT get saved by SG-1. He got himself off the murder charge AND got the technology for earth.
That's a tick in the win column for me.

Stronghold - Cameron runs off on his own, heedless of the suggestions made by the only CO of the mission.
There's really nothing else to say here. Cameron shouldn't have run off on his own and expected to take care of business on his own. This is the irrational/hothead mentality that he had been berating himself for not an hour prior to the mission, but somehow he managed to justify the actions once again in the heat of battle. If Sam and Daniel had not come when they had, Cameron would've been blasted. And even IF the Jaffa hadn't found him, he would've had no way of getting up to the ship, as Sam was the only one who could work the crystals. Not only did she show that she can handle the tactical side - which was telling Cameron that he could go up there alone, which allowed her the op to stay with the rest of the troops outside (*cough* plot device *cough*) - but she also handled the technical side, by taking care of the rings. If the team leader can't follow orders when he's been told explicitly who is in charge of the mission, we can't really expect his "subordinates" to do the same, now can we?

I'm curious. You say co-lead is in effect. You say, if co-lead is in effect, Sam is NOT Cam's subordinate. Yet here, you say Cam IS Sam's subordinate? It's gotta work both ways. Either at some point, Sam is the subordinate officer, or Cam was NOT bound to follow her orders in 'Stronghold'.
As to the topic, that's 1 time he was rescued.

Off The Grid - The team is told to "stay under the radar," but Cam takes this as an opportunity to role play with thugs and drug dealers.
Nope, it's not his fault the gate was beamed away. But what were they doing when they saw that the gate was being beamed away? They were defending themselves, outnumbered, from a group of planet-savvy, armed men who eventually overcame them. Why were they running for their lives at that time? Because Cameron insisted upon over-hyping his "role," and refused to stay under the radar. His plan had OTT written all over it, his more experienced team members told him so, he disregarded it, and almost got them killed for it. SG-1 got him out of the pinch the first time, but it was The Odyssey's phenomenal timing that saved them all.

Second Save.

The Scourge

But the team didn't save him, nor did his actions cause the problem.
And I rewatched the cave scene several times, I still don't agree that he didn't know about the protocol.

Arthur's Mantle

Sam's stuff up ended up putting them out of phase.
Cam saved the day, by killing Vol'nec and saving the crystal.
Yes, Teal'c pulled him out, but since he had previously saved Teal'c's butt, I don't count it.

So, there are exactly TWO times he was saved. Three if you count AM, which I don't.
three, out of twenty.
Agian, it's not like it's an epidemic. In fact, it's about what you'd expect from someone learning a new job.

These are not the actions of a group of people who wholly respect the guy as their leader. As a friend? Sure! As their moral equal? Absolutely. But certainly not as their superior. And only blaming them for their responses to Cameron's behavior is a weak argument at best. They treated him with respect, until he started acting the way he has. I think they were willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not ONLY blaming them. I've said, several times, it was a bad idea, But it was Cam's right to make a bad decision.
Also, who else am I supposed to blame for their behaviour? Moon elves?
Sam, Daniel and Teal'c are responsible for the way they behave. If you criticise Cam for his behaviour, we must also look at how the others are acting.
they've never actually given him that much respect, and now it's gotten worse.
Some of the blame for taht lies with them.

Teal'c's growl, and Sam's and Daniel's subsequent laughter all came after Cameron showed that he was really itching to swordfight again. Teal'c later said that his "overconfidence" wasn't such a good idea. He was not amused, and Sam and Daniel knew it.

No, he wasn't. However, if I recall, Mitchell put him in his place quite nicely.

Jonas was shoved into a tight-knit group. He didn't have command, of course, but the situations surrounding his entrance were just as emotionally charged (both in the show and within the fandom). The guy could NOT catch a break. It was only after they'd shown him the ropes, so to speak, that he actually started to get respect as a friend, and as a team member.

Yup, and it took him a while. It'll take Cam a bit longer cause he's leading.

Cameron, if he really does deserve to be the leader, should not have to prove himself in the field, because he should know what the heck he's doing long before they step through that gate. He shouldn't be making plans up on the fly, and he shouldn't be behaving like the basic laws of reality don't apply to him, simply because of his earnest wing-and-a-prayer take on things.

This is wrong. Every time a new leader is assigned to troops, that leader MUST prove himself in the minds of his subordinates.
Cam is qualifed for the post, but that doesn't mean they'll trust him.
Just like Carter and Teal'c had to prove themselves to O'Neill in COTG.

[Amanda Eros]

Why should the poll be moved to the front page? Why should the poll have any bearing? I mean, what if it was reversed and Mitchell had the most votes? Would the people who think Sam should lead feel it was better to have Mitchell lead just because he had the most numbers?

Well, if Mitchell had the most votes then it really wouldn't matter than, now would it? The point is that Carter has the most votes by a land slide. By moving that to the front page perhaps it would get more notice and there would be a larger amount of people voting. Perhaps it would change the results perhaps not. Though if it doesn't then that proves that a large number of the fan based feels that she should lead SG1. Give the PTB a wake up call, and show them that they fudged up Royally and how much they want to sell us Time Share Mitchell, we're not buying it. (Metaphor, their constant praising is like one of those Time Share dealers that just won't leave you alone no matter how much you tell them no.) Maybe even do one now in-between the season then it again at mid season to see if they have improved with Mitchell's characterization. If not then they really have some tough choices to make for season 11. And not the oh how are we going to write out Carter choice that I'm afraid of happening.

I still like Sam, I don't know if you do, but I do. I don't want to see that Positive Female Role Model thrown out because the actress refuses to sex it up. Having her command would then be more of an appropriate balance between her character and Vala they would be acting as foils then. I'm just ranting now, I'll stop for the time being.

[Lightsabre]

Well, if Mitchell had the most votes then it really wouldn't matter than, now would it? The point is that Carter has the most votes by a land slide. By moving that to the front page perhaps it would get more notice and there would be a larger amount of people voting. Perhaps it would change the results perhaps not. Though if it doesn't then that proves that a large number of the fan based feels that she should lead SG1. Give the PTB a wake up call, and show them that they fudged up Royally and how much they want to sell us Time Share Mitchell, we're not buying it. (Metaphor, their constant praising is like one of those Time Share dealers that just won't leave you alone no matter how much you tell them no.) Maybe even do one now in-between the season then it again at mid season to see if they have improved with Mitchell's characterization. If not then they really have some tough choices to make for season 11. And not the oh how are we going to write out Carter choice that I'm afraid of happening.

That still wouldn't prove anything. The amount of people that hit GW are not indictive of fans, nor could you guarantee that everyone would vote or only vote once. Basically, all this poll proves is the majority of people who voted like Sam.

I still like Sam, I don't know if you do, but I do. I don't want to see that Positive Female Role Model thrown out because the actress refuses to sex it up.

What? Where did this come from? Who's throwing out Carter? When was AT ever asked to sex it up?

Having her command would then be more of an appropriate balance between her character and Vala they would be acting as foils then. I'm just ranting now, I'll stop for the time being.

I don't see how command or lack of would influence her relationship with Vala.
Can you shed some more light on this?

[Dani347]

Um, it absolutely would matter if Mitchell was leading the poll. My argument would still be the same. Majority rule is not an argument. People have made some insightful arguments for why they think Sam should be leading SG1. I don't agree with every one, but they make sense for those people to have the position they do. And, if Mitchell was leading the poll, would that mean that Sam shouldn't, despite those arguments? Does having more people make a position more right? And, this isn't about Sam in particular. I'd say the same thing if Mitchell or Daniel or Teal'c were in the lead, and someone argued that one of them should lead, not because (or not only because) of arguments about the character or story or even casting, but because more people clicked a button next to their name. Majority is not always right. Having more people on a side does not make that position truer or better. And, considering that the whole fanbase would not be voting on the poll anyway, who knows what the majority acutally feels, no matter what the results are if it were on the front page? I know that the majority of people who voted in this poll think that Sam should be in the lead, but I put much more stock in the arguments given for why than a bunch of numbers.

And, my position has nothing to do with whether or not I like Sam. I just do not believe that bigger numbers means righter opinions. I never will.

[Dani347]

Basically, all this poll proves is the majority of people who voted like Sam.

Basically, all it proves is that the majority of the people who voted thinks that Sam should lead. I think it's an important distinction, because I think there's a belief that if you vote for one person you like them better overall, or if you don't for one, it means you don't like them, and you can't like a character but feel they shouldn't lead, or you can't believe a character should lead without them being your favorite.

[Deevil]

I really think we have to move away from the idea of majority rules. Simply because that website is a small subsection of the fanbase. GW does not speak for the fanbase as a whole, and people have to remember this. Moving this poll to the front page will not achieve anything - and frankly it shouldn't. It's our personal opinions, not our personal opinions that TPTB should consume as fan fact.

Yeah - that's all I have to add.

Basically, all this poll proves is the majority of people who voted like Sam.

No, it means the majority of people who have voted want Sam to lead. I like Mitchell, but I still voted for Sam. Hell, I think Teal'c should lead, but lets face it, the guy doesn't have a chance.

[Dani347]

Out of all 4, I would personally pick Teal'c. I know he would never lead, but I think he would make the best leader.

[Amanda Eros]

Um, it absolutely would matter if Mitchell was leading the poll. My argument would still be the same. Majority rule is not an argument. People have made some insightful arguments for why they think Sam should be leading SG1. I don't agree with every one, but they make sense for those people to have the position they do. And, if Mitchell was leading the poll, would that mean that Sam shouldn't, despite those arguments? Does having more people make a position more right? And, this isn't about Sam in particular. I'd say the same thing if Mitchell or Daniel or Teal'c were in the lead, and someone argued that one of them should lead, not because (or not only because) of arguments about the character or story or even casting, but because more people clicked a button next to their name. Majority is not always right. Having more people on a side does not make that position truer or better. And, considering that the whole fanbase would not be voting on the poll anyway, who knows what the majority acutally feels, no matter what the results are if it were on the front page? I know that the majority of people who voted in this poll think that Sam should be in the lead, but I put much more stock in the arguments given for why than a bunch of numbers.

And, my position has nothing to do with whether or not I like Sam. I just do not believe that bigger numbers means righter opinions. I never will.

In the real world, I agree with what you are saying. But since this is a tv show, and the fans should be able to hold some say in what goes on. They are the ones that watch it without them there would be no show. There should be some give or take that's all that I'm saying.

[Lightsabre]

Basically, all it proves is that the majority of the people who voted thinks that Sam should lead. I think it's an important distinction, because I think there's a belief that if you vote for one person you like them better overall, or if you don't for one, it means you don't like them, and you can't like a character but feel they shouldn't lead, or you can't believe a character should lead without them being your favorite.

Sorry, I meant like as in, like her for leader.
Not that if you voted for Sam you are a sam fan and so forth.
My mistake there.
Sorry.

[Deevil]

But since this is a tv show, and the fans should be able to hold some say in what goes on. They are the ones that watch it without them there would be no show. There should be some give or take that's all that I'm saying.

What fans should have some say in what goes on? Whose opinion is more important? Not all fans are on GW, and hell GW are divided on most of these kind of topics.

TPTB shouldn't pandy to a small subsection just because they scream the loudest. And let's face it, if the PTB did what all the fans wanted, we would be watching a hawaian shirt - that's how busy and convoluted and ridiculas it would be. You don't like the show now, it would not get better if the PTB wrote what the fans wanted.

Anyway, I am getting tired of reading 'this is what the fans want', 'TPTB are distancing themselves from the fanbase'. Well, I know a lot of the 'fanbase' who aren't on GW, or on anything other SG forum, does there opinion not count because of this? The fanbase is large and extends beyond this website, way beyond.