Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Lightsabre]

I see the point Deevil's trying to make, and this above illustrates it. You've objected several times to the fact that Scarimor, I believe it was, stated that she felt Mitchell lied in Off the Grid, by telling his team he would do one thing, and then doing something else entirely.

I've explained this, many times

Yet then you said Carter lied in Nightwalkers because when she was in a room full of Goa'uld by not telling her team she wasn't, in fact, snaked.

And later, I looked at the argument, realised in my haste to make my point I'd chosen a bad example, admitted that lie wasn't the word I should have used and restated my point.

You said Carter was lying in this very ambiguous situation AFTER you'd complained that someone had done the same thing to Mitchell. Saying Carter lied certainly takes away from your argument that it wasn't fair to say Mitchell lied. (Which, I agree with, by the way.)

Yes. My point was this.
Other"Mitchell is terrible, he shouldn't lead cause he lied"
Me"Carter lied too, so shouldn't Carter not lead as well".

Using that person's logic against them in that if a leader cannot ever lie, then Carter having lied ALSO disqualifies her from the leadership spot.
THat is the point I was making. Deevil claims to be a debating expert, yet he cannot see that, despite my stating that is what I was doing on this and other points over and over and over.
I"m sick and tired of being accused of attacking or denigrating or belittling Carter.
I'm not. I'm comparing her with Mitchell and finding that she has made a lot of the same 'mistakes' as he has.

You see where we're coming from?

See where I'm coming from?
I'm having to defend my position, alone, against at least five people who all post roughly the same argument, claim I cannot hold my own if I don't reply to THEM, and get overly aggressive or belittling to me when they cannot refute a point I've made.
Then some genius comes on and starts telling me that I'm a horrible person for arguing my side of the debate, refuses to actually engage me in debate, preferring to write long, nasty posts about how I cannot debate and know nothing.
What ever happened to 'attack the argument, not the person' or 'show respect to all posters' or 'respect someone else's opinion'.
I'm not trying to be a pain, but if you say "Mitchell shouldn't lead because of X', I'm entitled to deconstruct that argument and point out flaws.

[DEM]

Didn't he say: "the 300 fans who have just voted here are not entirely representative of the millions that watch each Friday night", and didn't you say: "Though the two are related, representativeness, in the statistical sense, is not synonymous with sample size."

I'm not trying to be dense, but the two statements sound pretty similar to me.

As I understood it given the context, Kas was opining that the poll doesn't tell us much, if anything, about what the "millions of viewers" think because only 300-some people have voted in it. IOW, 300-ish people can't possibly be representative of the larger viewing audience. Of course, many a statistician and pollster will tell you that one can, in fact, draw conclusions about a population based on a small sample of that population -- given that certain criteria are met. Representativeness is one of the criteria. That is, representativeness is a separate dimension from sample size, and, moreover, sample size is not a reliable indicator of representativeness.

[the dancer of spaz]

I'm sorry. I read this with an open mind(as open as I could get), but I have issues with your interpretation.
We all KNOW dual command in action doesn't work. It's entirely reasonable that alta-Cam did not want to get into a debate over orders, simply to move quickly.Hence he didn't challange Carter.
Also, it could be argued that Carter didn't give an order,but outlined a plan of attack.

She... outlined a plan of attack... redirected Teal'c (part of the act, but AU-Cam didn't know that)... and they all listened to her without question and moved accordingly. Sounds like an order to me. I don't quite know how you define orders, but when one says, "Do x," and people automatically do it, it means that person has authority. Not 100% authority in this case, but at least, oh... 50%.

Again, what happened is cannon, but your conclusion's aren't.
Pendergast talks to both yes, but as we've seen before in these situations, Cam makes the call.
Also, Pendergast could have been talking to them both because they have the same rank, team lead notwithstanding.
He might be acknowledging this is Carter area of expertise, even if she isn't leader.
Basically ,while this scene does indicate they are considered equals, there are other explanations.

Please keep in mind that I've read this twice now, and my intentions were not to mock. But do you understand how incredibly lame that is?

The three of them were all in the same general space, and Pendergast addressed them both, not once, not twice, but three times. You think Pendergast was simply asking Sam as a courtesy? "Well, it's your call, Colonels... make up your minds..." Was that just so she wouldn't feel left out? And then what? Was she supposed to quickly run over to Cameron and whisper in his ear what she thought they should do, so he could nod sagely in agreement, and say it out loud for all to hear?

And what about Teal'c? Cameron didn't even say, "Do it," until he saw Teal'c nod the affirmative, which came after a shared glance between him and Sam. If anything, it was the silent communication of a team that is SUPPOSED to consult each other when it comes to making the tough decisions.

As a team, they agreed that they were going to proceed with the mission, despite their obvious misgivings about putting Daniel's life in danger - a factor that, no doubt, was the very reason why they ALL hesitated in the first place. Had it been anyone or anything else, there would've been no issues, and Pendergast - an officer who outranks them both - wouldn't have had to wait for a delayed answer.

[ParadoxRealities]

See, I don't see arrogance here. No more than it was arrogant of Daniel to make a run for the Ancient device in Lost City (?) or Daniel, Jack, and Sam saying "I'll do it" about getting hooked up to the game to help Teal'c in Avatar. I know the circumstances aren't exactly the same, but I just mean that Mitchell racing off on his own didn't appear to me like he was saying anything about the other's ability to do the job. Anymore than the others were when they volunteered themselves in other cases.

Rereading my statements I can see how I might not have been clear. I thought it odd that surrounded by all the fine officers as he was, he felt it necessary to take off on his own, without asking Carter or calling for backup. That shows me that he thinks he can do a better job than everyone else because (as previously stated) his motivation was to rescue Teal'c, just like everyone else, yet he thought that running solo onto a mothership was the best way to do it. I have seen several other instances (all discussed here) where he doesn't seem to trust that his team may have knowledge/insight that he does not, despite his lack off world experience and (possibly) field experience in general.

[scarimor]

Actually it kinda is, this poll is meant to lead on from my 'chain of command' thread where I asked who was in charge, it seemed there was no way without asking the writers to be 100% who was the CO of SG1 so I asked for a poll to be done ,

Then the question on the poll is wrong. It doesn't say "Who is in charge?" It says "Who should lead SG1?" Was there a misunderstanding when they put the poll into effect?

This is rather fundamental. If you had asked "Who is in charge?" I would not have voted for either Mitchell or Carter alone because that's not what's happening in the show at the moment.

Crucially, the writers were asked some months ago. And the message came back that Sam and Cam are sharing command.

for some reason (and I don't mind) they included all four team members rather than just Carter and Mitchell who I asked for

And why not, given that the question is about who we'd prefer, not about the "is it Sam or Cam or both?" do-dah.

but it's interesting to see who people would like out of all four so I think it was a ood idea to include all of them.

Sure, given the change in the question.

I wonder what would happen to Mitchell though if Carter got the job, considering he was originally selected to lead SG1 after it dispanded effectivly .

Since they both share the job at the moment, I don't see how this would plausibly happen unless Mitchell did something for which he was demoted by means of disciplinary action. In which case that would be "what would happen".

I don't think they're likely to write this though!

[Lightsabre]

While you are right that Carter did not take a demotion, Mitchell also would not have been demoted had Carter been made the leader after him.

There is a vast difference between leaving a position and having it filled and having the position taken from you and given to another and then making you subordinate to your replacement.
In the military, it basically means your career is over.

You have to remember that the circumstances changed entirely; when Mitchell received the command there was no war, SG-1 could afford to be lead by someone without gate experience. That changed with the Ori.

Why? Mitchell is not a 20 year old liutenant, he is a Lt Col with years of military and command experience. He is accomplished fighter pilot.
He knows how to fight a war.

Only an incredibly arrogant officer (I believe someone said Sam would be arrogant if she thought she would be the leader again) would expect that they, with no offworld experience, could keep their position as leader of a recon team in peacetime when Earth is plunged into a war with yet another incredible enemy. Yes, the team would have the same name, but its purpose (and importance) changed entirely.

I disagree for a few reasons.
a)the military does not work like that. Officers do not have effective veto on positions they once held. Carter left and her job was filled by someone who had the qualifications.
b)SG-1 is still the first contact team. It's role hasn't changed significantly, you just replace Goa';uld with Ori.

People also seem to like BB’s quote that the commander of the Thunderbirds had not lead the Thunderbirds before. I’d like to point out that Lt. Col. Kevin J. Robbins is an AMAZING pilot. He has logged over 3,200 flight hours, 2,900 of which were in F-15A/B/C/D and F-16C/D (which the Thunderbird use). He has served as squadron aircraft commander, flight commander, instructional pilot, director of operations, and was awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal six times. (he’s also an expert in weapons/tactics, and served the AF in the House of Representatives, but those are less relevant to his current posting).

Which serves my point that Mitchell must have relevant skills or experience or he wouldn't be the leader.

[Madeleine]

"It's your call, colonels" is something that was said by the senior oficer present. Which meant that it was truly his call, not either of theirs; but that he would make his call based on what theirs was. I saw that as the senior officer deciding to make the decision based on advice from his subordinates. The two juniors concurred. So it was de facto, as Pendergast had said, THEIR call. But that is because Pendergast had chosen to pass the decision onto his advisors, not because the two advisors were equal.

Had they disagreed we do not know what Pendergast would have done, but I think he'd have gone with the one who convinced him of the rightness of their opinion, not with the one who was senior. And what could he do if they were true equals and disagreed? He'd have listened to them and made the call himself, not allowed them to hash it out as equals without either backing down. It was ultimately his call.

He trusted them to give good advice. He wasn't implying that the two juniors were of equal standing, just that they would each provide him with clear advice that was more informed than his own position.

[Lightsabre]

She... outlined a plan of attack... redirected Teal'c (part of the act, but AU-Cam didn't know that)... and they all listened to her without question and moved accordingly. Sounds like an order to me. I don't quite know how you define orders, but when one says, "Do x," and people automatically do it, it means that person has authority. Not 100% authority in this case, but at least, oh... 50%.

Hmm, well when Jack did that in 'The First Commandment', I believe it was you who said it wasn't an order?(I may be wrong).
But now it is?
Sometimes, when you say 'do x', people do it cause it makes sense. That doesn't make you the leader. There have been a few times when I've given instructions to my equals and even superiors at work, because what I've said has been the best way to handle it.
That doesn't mean that I am now in charge of them

The three of them were all in the same general space, and Pendergast addressed them both, not once, not twice, but three times. You think Pendergast was simply asking Sam as a courtesy? "Well, it's your call, Colonels... make up your minds..." Was that just so she wouldn't feel left out? And then what? Was she supposed to quickly run over to Cameron and whisper in his ear what she thought they should do, so he could nod sagely in agreement, and say it out loud for all to hear?

No, I assumed that given their equal rank, it might be fair to address the question to both of them.
As I said, we've never seen Sam make the call, it's always Cam.
That tends to tell me either Sam won't make the call or she can't, Pendergast's comments notwithstanding.

And what about Teal'c? Cameron didn't even say, "Do it," until he saw Teal'c nod the affirmative, which came after a shared glance between him and Sam. If anything, it was the silent communication of a team that is SUPPOSED to consult each other when it comes to making the tough decisions.

What about Teal'c. Didn't we have the big debate about listening to subordinates earlier?
That's all he's doing. Listening to his subordinates.

As a team, they agreed that they were going to proceed with the mission, despite their obvious misgivings about putting Daniel's life in danger - a factor that, no doubt, was the very reason why they ALL hesitated in the first place. Had it been anyone or anything else, there would've been no issues, and Pendergast - an officer who outranks them both - wouldn't have had to wait for a delayed answer.

But Cam made the call. He was hte head. The leader, even.

[Lightsabre]

Then the question on the poll is wrong. It doesn't say "Who is in charge?" It says "Who should lead SG1?" Was there a misunderstanding when they put the poll into effect?

This is rather fundamental. If you had asked "Who is in charge?" I would not have voted for either Mitchell or Carter alone because that's not what's happening in the show at the moment.

Crucially, the writers were asked some months ago. And the message came back that Sam and Cam are sharing command.

Yes, but sadly, writers comments do NOT count as cannon and Joe ALSO said we would not see the co-command issue addressed in the show.

[Lightsabre]

"It's your call, colonels" is something that was said by the senior oficer present. Which meant that it was truly his call, not either of theirs; but that he would make his call based on what theirs was. I saw that as the senior officer deciding to make the decision based on advice from his subordinates. The two juniors concurred. So it was de facto, as Pendergast had said, THEIR call. But that is because Pendergast had chosen to pass the decision onto his advisors, not because the two advisors were equal.

Had they disagreed we do not know what Pendergast would have done, but I think he'd have gone with the one who convinced him of the rightness of their opinion, not with the one who was senior. And what could he do if they were true equals and disagreed? He'd have listened to them and made the call himself, not allowed them to hash it out as equals without either backing down. It was ultimately his call.

He trusted them to give good advice. He wasn't implying that the two juniors were of equal standing, just that they would each provide him with clear advice that was more informed than his own position.

I hadn't considered that. It would be odd for Pendergast to take orders from people junior in rank to him.

[warmbeachbrat]

No. I just asked for a specific example.

I did not accuse you of bashing Sam.

Do you have an example?

I've lost track of where I am in the various discussions. If I haven't answered anyone, it's not intentional.

Um--I didn't mean to infer that you accused me of bashing Sam. I included the paragraph to forestall that from anyone else and to try to clarify my previous point. Logic and clarity are not my strong points--which is why I value them so highly in a discussion, even if I can't put them into practice.

I never thought of a specific post when I made my comment. It was the overall tone of the thread that I meant. This could simply be the preponderance of Sam proponents (as minigeek pointed out), or not. I thought my previous post had explained my reasoning (such as it is). It's my impression, my opinion borne out of reading over twenty pages in one sitting. The thought of re-wading through the umpteen number of pages for a specific example fills me with dread and will have to wait until I have a larger block of time.

[scarimor]

Originally Posted by ParadoxRealities
People also seem to like BB’s quote that the commander of the Thunderbirds had not lead the Thunderbirds before. I’d like to point out that Lt. Col. Kevin J. Robbins is an AMAZING pilot. He has logged over 3,200 flight hours, 2,900 of which were in F-15A/B/C/D and F-16C/D (which the Thunderbird use). He has served as squadron aircraft commander, flight commander, instructional pilot, director of operations, and was awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal six times. (he’s also an expert in weapons/tactics, and served the AF in the House of Representatives, but those are less relevant to his current posting).

Which serves my point that Mitchell must have relevant skills or experience or he wouldn't be the leader.

That he should have is not in question. What it shows is that the writers did not allow it to be realistic that Mitchell has the relevant skills and certainly not the relevant experience to lead an off-world SG team, let alone the flagship one. What the writers have done is the equivalent of giving command of the Thunderbirds to a man who has never commanded a squadron before or even been a pilot.

It is called a gaping hole in dramatic plausibility. We are left to fanwank that he does have the skills (somehow) and the experience (god only knows how!) for the position.

edit: and this wouldn't bother me in the "should he be in charge" issue if everything we had seen on screen since he appeared showed that he was up to the job; I'm prepared to fanwank to accomodate bad writing and get over it. I was ready to do that when Mitchell was introduced... and kept trying right the way up to Off the Grid... and then they wrote him being anything but suitable for the position on screen! It wasn't so bad while I could just play along and turn a blind eye to the default implausibility, but it became hopeless when they made him actively implausible.

[scarimor]

I've lost track of where I am in the various discussions. If I haven't answered anyone, it's not intentional.

Um--I didn't mean to infer that you accused me of bashing Sam. I included the paragraph to forestall that from anyone else and to try to clarify my previous point.

Ok, no problem

I never thought of a specific post when I made my comment. It was the overall tone of the thread that I meant. This could simply be the preponderance of Sam proponents (as minigeek pointed out), or not. I thought my previous post had explained my reasoning (such as it is). It's my impression, my opinion borne out of reading over twenty pages in one sitting. The thought of re-wading through the umpteen number of pages for a specific example fills me with dread and will have to wait until I have a larger block of time.

I get your drift. Don't worry about it.

[Dani347]

Rereading my statements I can see how I might not have been clear. I thought it odd that surrounded by all the fine officers as he was, he felt it necessary to take off on his own, without asking Carter or calling for backup. That shows me that he thinks he can do a better job than everyone else because (as previously stated) his motivation was to rescue Teal'c, just like everyone else, yet he thought that running solo onto a mothership was the best way to do it.

Surrounded by Jack and Sam (was anyone else in the scene? I don't recall) Daniel felt it was necessary to race off on his own to stick his head in the Ancient device. I don't think that meant Daniel thought he was better suited to get the information in it than they were.

I can see we see this differently, because even with your clarification, I don't see arrogance. I don't think he did it because he thought he could do it better, any more than a person who volunteers themselves for job or a mission are necessarily thinking they can do the job better than the others.

[Lightsabre]

Surrounded by Jack and Sam (was anyone else in the scene? I don't recall) Daniel felt it was necessary to race off on his own to stick his head in the Ancient device. I don't think that meant Daniel thought he was better suited to get the information in it than they were.

I can see we see this differently, because even with your clarification, I don't see arrogance. I don't think he did it because he thought he could do it better, any more than a person who volunteers themselves for job or a mission are necessarily thinking they can do the job better than the others.

I agree. I don't think he thought he was better.
I think, he had decided, in his head, that no one else was going to die. So he stormed the hill. Now the SG teams could get up there.
However he would have had to hold an unteanble position or retreat.
I think he decided to push on, because he saw the ship was leaving. Retreating and advancing as a group would probably have cost them Teal'c and Bra'tac. If Sam, Cam and Daniel hadn't gotten to the rings when they did, the ha'tak would have been gone.
It wasn't arrogance, it was a desire to fulfill the mission.