Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Adal]

{Mod Snip}

I really don't know what you think you're proving bringing either of these tired arguments back into the debate though as again, neither of these things have a thing to do with the fact that a Lieutenant Colonel in a position of authority left top secret equipment unattended and disobeyed a direct order in the middle of a battle.

Exactly my point.
Both Sam and Jack have disobeyed orders in the past, yet I don't see the condemnation that they are 'bad' officers that I do for Mitchell
adal brought this up, this is acceptable rebuttal.

What exactly is your point? ÜberSG-1Fan's point was that bringing up points about a Captains actions 9 years previously has nothing to do with justifying a Lt Colonels actions in the present. Are you agreeing with ÜberSG-1Fan??

What exactly am I have supposed to have brought up and how does this rebutt ÜberSG-1Fan??

[scarimor]

I want to know one thing, because we seem to jump about this in this thread. Does any real life military protocols come into play in this debate, or do we solely base our opinions on the protocols that have been indentified and set in the SG universe?

In theory, you accept the real world as the basis for a story's diegesis, unless specifically shown otherwise. So yes. And that goes for everything, not just military protocols.

[TameFarrar]

I want to know one thing, because we seem to jump about this in this thread. Does any real life military protocols come into play in this debate, or do we solely base our opinions on the protocols that have been indentified and set in the SG universe?
.

this is just my personal opinion....
But since this is a fictional show and the writers WILL take dramatic license whenever they need to I think it is a safe bet to stick with what has been been presented on the show. Since RL military is not like this and the best you can ask for is that it is *close* to similar and maybe not even then

Madeleine summed it up nicely in her post above regarding suspension of disbelief. If you are trying to apply real life military protocols then you are going to be disenchanted rather quickly since the writers will and have done whatever they feel serves the story first and people's real life sensiblities second

[Adal]

I want to know one thing, because we seem to jump about this in this thread. Does any real life military protocols come into play in this debate, or do we solely base our opinions on the protocols that have been indentified and set in the SG universe?



I think the difference in rank, and the relative 'newness' of stargate travel somewhat make the arguments between what Sam did in early seasons, as opposed to what Mitchell did in S9, with 8 years of mission reports and notes he had read while in hospital somewhat incomparable. I would have assumed that those reports would have made him more pragmatic in the decisions that he made.

Well seeing as this thread is about who should lead then I think anything relevant to leadership in RL and canon on the show is relevant.

The expectations from the military (both in RL and on the show) of a Lt Colonel in command of a team are different to their expectations for a Captain who is 2IC of a team so comparing them is not realistic and would not be done.

Excusing an officer's reckless actions because hey someone else did it, is not acceptable. Each officer should be judged on their own merits and actions in context.

[Deevil]

In theory, you accept the real world as the basis for a story's diegesis, unless specifically shown otherwise. So yes. And that goes for everything, not just military protocols.

Okay, I can understand this, and accept it as such. Since wearing covers in the field has been ignored for the majority of the show, we can assume that that military protocol does not fit. Right?

Therefore since people/suboridinates generally don't run off during firefights, we can assume the person that does was acting in contrary to SG protocol?

*** please be patient with me I am trying to set a bench mark of what real life facts are able to be argued in relation to the Stargate Universe so we don't play another rousing game of "What is relevant".

this is just my personal opinion....
But since this is a fictional show and the writers WILL take dramatic license whenever they need to I think it is a safe bet to stick with what has been been presented on the show. Since RL military is not like this and the best you can ask for is that it is *close* to similar and maybe not even then

You see, this I agree with. It's only when things just don't seem to make sense I will question it (MoH being one of them)...

Madeleine summed it up nicely in her post above regarding suspension of disbelief. If you are trying to apply real life military protocols then you are going to be disenchanted rather quickly since the writers will and have done whatever they feel serves the story first and people's real life sensiblities second

True, very true. I don't watch it for anything that resembles real Military life and protocol and actions. I watch it for the people, although if they are meant to be officers I do expect them to act as a reasonable facsimilie of one.

The expectations from the military (both in RL and on the show) of a Lt Colonel in command of a team are different to their expectations for a Captain who is 2IC of a team so comparing them is not realistic and would not be done.

Excusing an officer's reckless actions because hey someone else did it, is not acceptable. Each officer should be judged on their own merits and actions in context.

That's true, explaining and arguing differences in rank and responsibility is a canon thing, so you are not so much discussing RL as you are canon .

**** Okay, so far it has been presented that a RL system of belief exists for anything we haven't been shown in the SG universe. Therefore those things which have been shown as fact in the SG universe as fact can no be contradicted by that which is real?

[smurf]

I want to know one thing, because we seem to jump about this in this thread. Does any real life military protocols come into play in this debate, or do we solely base our opinions on the protocols that have been indentified and set in the SG universe?

It's a bit difficult for this thread, because if we we're solely using RL military protocols then I'm sure it would be pretty much void since I doubt the AF is so daft as to essentially demote a leader twice in order to get a pilot with no ground experience as leader of a front line team when other better qualified officers exist.
Maybe they do all the time, but one would hope not.

I guess we should be basing the arguments on military protocols in the SG universe with RL protocols to fill in the gaps for those that are not yet explicit in SG universe.
Using this as a base, the protocols have been clearly set out in Proving Ground, Lockdown, and the one where Jack fakes going rogue (can't remember the title) to what is required to join/lead a SG team. Unfortunately I think Mitchell fails under this set of protocols too.


I think suspension of disbelief works best if we haven't been told (in that particular story universe) otherwise. With a show as long running it has to play by it's own rules - eg. Vala saying the Tok'ra removed her symbiote must be a lie, because we know that you can only use goa'uld tech if you have naquada in your blood. Either by being a current host or by having a dead symbiote be absorbed - so by SG-1 rules Mitchell would never be on a team with no experience much less lead.
Breaking their own rules breaks my suspension of disbelief, and it always seems to lead to a slow death for TV shows.

[Madeleine]

Well seeing as this thread is about who should lead then I think anything relevant to leadership in RL and canon on the show is relevant.

It'll be relevant to you, and I can't see how it could be otherwise. It was always relevant to a friend of mine who was a moderator here for a long time, and who had seen the military from the inside, as you have done. For instance, she seized up every time she saw a seasoned military officer bareheaded in a situation where a hat of some sort would have been appropriate. Mention Solitudes to her and she goes mental. Knowing, as she does, how the concept of wearing a hat if you are in an icy place is totally fundamental to a soldier, her SoD just cannot cope with bareheaded officers in the snow.

It's not especially relevant to me though, and it might be of no relevance at all to some people. To me, the issue of Teyla's hair is far more of a stumbling block than whether Cam deserves a medal of some sort. A fair few friends of mine - male friends, and female ones who've never had long hair - think I make too much of a fuss and that long loose hair in a battle should not be a stumbling block for me. They think that Hair is trivial and irrelevant. I'd like to agree, but I've always had long hair, and it's in my blood to know what a weeny gust of wind can do for one's vision and capability if long hair is loose, just as it's probably in your blood to find the idea of Cam getting that medal quite bizzarre.

So yes, what you said is relevant IS relevant to this thread - but not necessarily to everyone on the thread.

[Deevil]

What I never understood was why Mitchell was allowed to share his memories of classified material with Ferguson. The Stargate Program is supposed to be a secret, or at least it was the last time I checked. Ferguson did not need to know about it, he was not in a position to offer them any kind of assistance, as Jacob was, and hadn't seen anything the way Pete had. I fail to see why Mitchell's guilt was reason enough to allow somebody access to highly confidential information and alien equipment, without even having them sign a confidentiality agreement or ensuring that the equipment was under supervision at all times.

It would have made more sense if Mitchell had taken the device and shared his memories without permission.

Precident had already been set with this, waaay back in season 1, a little episode called Cold Lazerous - but spelt much better then that - where Jack intentionally exposed his wife to the program by having the crystal entity manifest itself as Charlie their son.

This was then compounded in Chimera where Pete 'stalked' (I use the word stalk only for convience, not because I believe it) Sam and then saw enough and was injured enough to be bought into the program.

Add to that there was the guy in the episode Unseen, and Joe from Citizen Joe. Letting a dying man in the Academy Hospital (a hospital which has housed refugees from other planets, making it likely it has a 'top secret' section where Fergie could have had and kept the technology) know what was happening was not so extraordinary, and not so different then what has happened in the past.

[Madeleine]

I think the secrecy thing is just because different people have been in charge, and policies change. They've been laxer at some times and tighter at others because of politics and because of the changes in management and in procedure at the Pentagon.

[Deevil]

I think suspension of disbelief works best if we haven't been told (in that particular story universe) otherwise. With a show as long running it has to play by it's own rules - eg. Vala saying the Tok'ra removed her symbiote must be a lie, because we know that you can only use goa'uld tech if you have naquada in your blood. Either by being a current host or by having a dead symbiote be absorbed - so by SG-1 rules Mitchell would never be on a team with no experience much less lead.

We all seem to have the same benchmark, so far, on when real life factoids may or may not be relevant.

As for Vala (I know this is off topic) didn't Kendra 'loose' her symbiote in 'Thor's Hammer'. The implication was that it left her and died, because canon tells us that the host will die with the symbiote unless the symbiote is able to use it's life to save the host. Therefore, doesn't cannon become a matter of how long you carry the Goa'uld as to if you cna use the tech?

[Deevil]

I think the secrecy thing is just because different people have been in charge, and policies change. They've been laxer at some times and tighter at others because of politics and because of the changes in management and in procedure at the Pentagon.

That's a very interesting point. When Kinsey was in a position of power, only Pete was able to get knowledge in the program. Since then we have had Joe in Citizen Joe and Fergie... Maybe President Hayes is a little more open about the program, and why wouldn't be since his predicessor allowed a film crew in to film.

But my overall point is, it isn't unbelievable and individual, that Mitchell was allowed to bring his friend into the fold, 'specially if you look at the fact that he was up for the same postion as Mitchell before the accident.

[smurf]

We all seem to have the same benchmark, so far, on when real life factoids may or may not be relevant.

As for Vala (I know this is off topic) didn't Kendra 'loose' her symbiote in 'Thor's Hammer'. The implication was that it left her and died, because canon tells us that the host will die with the symbiote unless the symbiote is able to use it's life to save the host. Therefore, doesn't cannon become a matter of how long you carry the Goa'uld as to if you cna use the tech?

Still OT, but relavent in a "what's canon" sense... maybe.

I thought the implication from the reaction to Teal'c and the Goa'ulded Unas was that the Asgard doorway killed the symbiote when you walked through it. I don't remember seeing the Goa'uld escape the Unas, although it has been a while since I saw the episode.

Hold on, quick thought, if it is limited by time then Jack should be able to use Goa'uld technology since his Tok'rafied period (Frozen to Abyss) is much longer than Sam's. Only difference is Sam's snake died and Jack's escaped (I thought they made a great play of it leaving, I half expected it to pop up again as a story).

ETA: I think the Unas died when the symbiote did because of the age of the host, similar to how Apothos got old when his symbiote was dying. It seems possible that the Asgard device is designed to kill quick enough to not give the symbiote time to release its poison.

[Deevil]

I thought the implication from the reaction to Teal'c and the Goa'ulded Unas was that the Asgard doorway killed the symbiote when you walked through it. I don't remember seeing the Goa'uld escape the Unas, although it has been a while since I saw the episode.

No, the Unas was still firmly Goa'ulded. But maybe the Goa'uld makes the choice to leave the host in order to free itself of the pain. We know that they don't like pain - big wimps.

Hold on, quick thought, if it is limited by time then Jack should be able to use Goa'uld technology since his Tok'rafied period (Frozen to Abyss) is much longer than Sam's. Only difference is Sam's snake died and Jack's escaped (I thought they made a great play of it leaving, I half expected it to pop up again as a story).

But he only had a snake from maybe a week or 2, Kendra had it for decades. Length of time might be relevant. The body over a large period of time may absorb the naquada from the Goa'uld, and Jack then only recieved a very small amount, one the eventually vacaded his body.

Hmmm, this is an interesting convo I have to say (and your right, we are establishing canon). Maybe Vala was lying, and the Goa'uld did die in her... It is possible, and it could be interesting to find out why she lied about that.

[smurf]

No, the Unas was still firmly Goa'ulded. But maybe the Goa'uld makes the choice to leave the host in order to free itself of the pain. We know that they don't like pain - big wimps.

I thought it was the doorway out that killed the symbiote.

But he only had a snake from maybe a week or 2, Kendra had it for decades. Length of time might be relevant. The body over a large period of time may absorb the naquada from the Goa'uld, and Jack then only recieved a very small amount, one the eventually vacaded his body.

Hmmm, this is an interesting convo I have to say (and your right, we are establishing canon). Maybe Vala was lying, and the Goa'uld did die in her... It is possible, and it could be interesting to find out why she lied about that.

But Sam only had hers for hours/a couple of days.
I think the explaination from Kendra has to be taken from the point of view that she hasn't got the scientific or Tok'ra explaination of the process. It's the POV that makes sense to her.

Given it's Vala I wouldn't be surprised if greed led her to an Asgard trap, and she lied for the sympathy vote. It's so very Vala.

[scarimor]

It'll be relevant to you, and I can't see how it could be otherwise. It was always relevant to a friend of mine who was a moderator here for a long time, and who had seen the military from the inside, as you have done. For instance, she seized up every time she saw a seasoned military officer bareheaded in a situation where a hat of some sort would have been appropriate. Mention Solitudes to her and she goes mental. Knowing, as she does, how the concept of wearing a hat if you are in an icy place is totally fundamental to a soldier, her SoD just cannot cope with bareheaded officers in the snow.

It's not especially relevant to me though, and it might be of no relevance at all to some people. To me, the issue of Teyla's hair is far more of a stumbling block than whether Cam deserves a medal of some sort. A fair few friends of mine - male friends, and female ones who've never had long hair - think I make too much of a fuss and that long loose hair in a battle should not be a stumbling block for me. They think that Hair is trivial and irrelevant. I'd like to agree, but I've always had long hair, and it's in my blood to know what a weeny gust of wind can do for one's vision and capability if long hair is loose, just as it's probably in your blood to find the idea of Cam getting that medal quite bizzarre.

So yes, what you said is relevant IS relevant to this thread - but not necessarily to everyone on the thread.

Details of what is and isn't appropriate and acceptable were important enough to TPTB to have an Air Force adviser at some point. I know what you mean - I noticed when Sam and Janet had non-regulation haircuts, and I noticed when they got acceptable ones; but while they had dubious barnets I could notice and get past it quickly to enjoy the story (for some reason Teyla's flying hair keeps jabbing me though - maybe because it reminds me that she's an outsider and I don't want it to? Get a scrunch band! ).

With characterization it's another matter though. Characterization and role (and any mismatch) is fundamental to me. And something as important as the team dynamic, which is moulded and affected by characterization and the manner of a new character's introduction - that's got to be right. If that's repeatedly jarring my suspension of disbelief, and feeding plot devices for lazy story-telling, that's a big problem.

It kinda saddens me that in the past TPTB cared enough to get haircuts right, but now they don't make even characterization and resulting action plausible