Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Deevil]

Can I try to clarify?

I think Lightsabre was saying these two separate things:

1) You can't disallow Mitchell for disobeying orders and allow Sam, cos sam has disobeyed orders too, so "Cam shouldn't lead cos he disobeyed orders" is a duff argument.

2) Lightsabre personally thinks Sam challenges orders so infrequently as to be not leadership material.

Personally I think there's no cotradiction in these points, but Lightsabre if I've misrepresented you feel free to correct me.

See that makes sense, to a degree... Although with the first arguement I will still say that something Carter did as a Capt. should not be compared to the actions of a Lt. Col.

and point 2 - Carter challenges (or challenged) orders often. "With all due respect sir, No." was like her catch cry for a while there .

But thanks for the clarification. I knew I totally missed his point. I think my comprehension skills are on the blink right now.

[Lightsabre]

Dude, I was being sarcastic.

Oh, umm so was I???

You're right. Insubordination is insubordination. But the two situations are completely different.

I disagree.
Sam made a decision that Risked her life, Jack ordered her to come back, she ignored him.
Mitchell made a decison that risked his life(I don't see how it risked anyone else's, the point was he didn't wait for backup.)
They seem the same to me.

You've got a Captain on Earth, who's going back down an elevator hundreds of feet below the surface in an abandoned base where the only person she can harm is herself - when, in reality, she's already figured out that the bomb will not go off, and that she made a promise to a little girl that she wouldn't leave her alone.

She may have figured it out, but she WASN'T sure. Also, while I respect her keeping her promise, she swore an oath that means she owes her first allegience to the US military and that means Jack's order comes above her promise.
Regardless, none of that excuses her willing putting her life in danger and disobeying a direct order.

And you've got a Lt. Colonel, off world in combat, who's deliberately going into dangerous territory without back up, despite what the leader of the mission has ordered - when in reality, he's putting himself, his team mates and the other members of the contingent in jeopardy for some half-baked solo mission to save Teal'c, a direct deviation from the plan, which he would've known if he a) cared or b) had attended the pre-mission briefing.

How is he endangering anyone. This is what I don't get.

The two situations couldn't be further apart, insubordination aside.

See above.

So, you're agreeing that Mitchell was Carter's subordinate for this mission right? That's no longer an issue anymore. Cool.

Yup, I put up a straw man and it was shut down. I can accept that, it was a long shot.

And one doesn't have to see the episode to know that this logic is flawed.

Not really.

You're agreeing that they're both at the same level of gate experience and that both are subordinates in the episodes mentioned. Yet no one in their right mind would've put Captain Carter in charge of an SG-team on a regular basis. That's lunacy.

None of the commanders of the early SG teams had any experience.
Captain Carter may well have found herself with a team had things been different.

So... If you think the two situations are so identical, you're bringing up a good point: Mitchell is NOT QUALIFIED to lead an SG-team, let alone SG-1, through the gate on a regular basis due to his inexperience.

The difference is that Mitchell has command experience that Captain Carter didn't.(and this is not relevant to MY point about insubordination.)

Or you're saying that Lt. Colonel Cameron, though he's completely qualified to lead an SG-team, should be held to the same standards as a Captain.

Which is it?

Neither.
Please explain to me how your duty to obey your CO diminishes as you gain rank?
It doesn't. A Lt Col still owes the same level of respect and obedience to their CO as a captain, Major or private does.

Their rank matters. Just because you say it doesn't a bunch of times, doesn't mean it doesn't.

Very true.
I suppose the explanation I added is irrelevant too?

Captain Mitchell is miles away from Colonel Mitchell (we hope), and Captain Carter is miles away from Colonel Carter.

Again, true

Holding Colonel Mitchell and Captain Carter to the same standards says a lot about Colonel Mitchell's character. It's saying he missed something HUGE somewhere along the line between promotions - something like knowing when to lead and knowing when to follow orders.

Hmm, so if I'm a Lt Col, I don't have to follow orders as much as a captain does?
Or I need to follow them more? How much difference can htere be in following orders
You either follow them or you don't.

[Lightsabre]

But weren't you like 5 minutes ago saying she *doesn't* follow orders? How do we move on from insubordination and disobediance to having a followers mentality?

I highlighted some instances that she had disobeyed but by no means did I say Sam never follows orders.
Sam mostly follows orders and doesn't show that she questions or disagrees.
Even when she does disagree, once the decision is made, she submits.
TO me, that is a followers mentality.

What's the number of that train you're on, because I'd like to catch up.

Yeah, you are the soul of politeness and respect.
You mangle my argument into something only an idiot would present, then ridicule it.

[Lightsabre]

Can I try to clarify?

I think Lightsabre was saying these two separate things:

1) You can't disallow Mitchell for disobeying orders and allow Sam, cos sam has disobeyed orders too, so "Cam shouldn't lead cos he disobeyed orders" is a duff argument.

Yup got it in one and thanks.

2) Lightsabre personally thinks Sam challenges orders so infrequently as to be not leadership material.

Not exactly.
It's not just challanging, it's that she seems the most comfortable when she is taking hte orders, not giving them.
A followers mentalitiy.

Personally I think there's no cotradiction in these points, but Lightsabre if I've misrepresented you feel free to correct me.

No, I don't see a contradiction either.
I;m not saying Sam can't lead or is a bad leader, simply that she prefers to follow.

[Deevil]

Yeah, you are the soul of politeness and respect.
You mangle my argument into something only an idiot would present, then ridicule it.

I didn't understand what you said, hense my question. I had it explain to me, all is cool. And while I don't agree, I didn't ridicule anything.

Honestly, I question what you were reading, because it wasn't my post.

And mate, everyone in the forces has what you would classify a 'followers mentality'. I am not saying that she doesn't have one, but I am saying she does and did often question orders.

[Lightsabre]

Lightsabre, frankly debating with you is a waste of time as you want to argue. I wont do that with you.

When you debate, you present an argument. you also argue your point of view.
I'm not posting simply to annoy people, I'm posting because I have a genuine difference of opinion.

As for everything else - believe about me what you will. But take head, I have made no personal attacks, can you say the same?

I've been about as personal as you. Maybe a little less so.

And if I have ruined everyones enjoyment of the thread, I would rather hear it from them, then from you, a single individual on the thread.

Well you certainly ruined mine.

[Lightsabre]

I didn't understand what you said, hense my question. I had it explain to me, all is cool. And while I don't agree, I didn't ridicule anything.

Honestly, I question what you were reading, because it wasn't my post.

And mate, everyone in the forces has what you would classify a 'followers mentality'. I am not saying that she doesn't have one, but I am saying she does and did often question orders.

So saying things like 'What train were you on again' is polite is it?
No, it's ridiculing.

[Lightsabre]

I didn't understand what you said, hense my question. I had it explain to me, all is cool. And while I don't agree, I didn't ridicule anything.

Honestly, I question what you were reading, because it wasn't my post.

And mate, everyone in the forces has what you would classify a 'followers mentality'. I am not saying that she doesn't have one, but I am saying she does and did often question orders.

Deevil.
I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot.
I'd like to bury the hatchet.
I'll drop the 'personal attack' bit if you will stop the 'what train are you on' type comments.
How's that sound?

[Deevil]

So saying things like 'What train were you on again' is polite is it?
No, it's ridiculing.

No it means that I was left behind and have no idea what you are talking about. What you said went straight past me. Does it make more sense now?

There was no ridicule involved. You seem to view everything I post as a personal insult, which to me is frankly unbelievable. But if that's what you want to do, who am I to stop you?

Deevil.
I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot.
I'd like to bury the hatchet.
I'll drop the 'personal attack' bit if you will stop the 'what train are you on' type comments.
How's that sound?

Hey I'm more than willing to move on, but those comments are intrinsicly me. I can't 'drop' them. I often explain myself through use of metaphor and similie. I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but I will not apologise for doing so.

The insults and ridicule you have enjoyed accusing me of were never there, but it was oddly amusing in a screwed up way being accused of it every post.

So does this moving on mean we can attend to the debate at hand?

[scarimor]

Being right does not excuse insubordination. There are some things change the degree...

Just a point on this insubordination thing: it's not really possible for officers of the same rank to be insubordinate to each other, mission-control notwithstanding. One could disobey the other's direct order if he/she were in charge of the mission, but insubordination is a rank issue.

Colonel O'Neill and Colonel Maybourne couldn't be insubordinate to each other, no matter their circumstances. Colonel Maybourne did accuse Major Carter of insubordination in Foothold when she called him a jackass for breaking the foothold protocol and jeopardising the planet. But Carter and Mitchell can't be insubordinate towards each other while they're both Lt. Colonels.

[scarimor]

re. the singularity scene:

Yes it does in that respect. Though Sam was endangering no one but herself. And she may have had fallout from that. Stargate never wraps things up cleanly, they just tell the story and end it. ( I guess that's why we have fanfic.)

I loved this scene. It shows that Carter does not follow blindly, just like O'Neill doesn't. He disobeyed Hammond's direct order and took SG-1 through the gate to save the planet in Serpent's Lair, and she disobeyed his direct order and went back to get Cassie because she realised the bomb inside her was no longer live.

Our characters should not be yes-men; that would make them boring and unsympathetic. Mitchell shouldn't be a yes-man either. But good writing makes a character sympathetic in dramatic conflict, not ridiculous. If Mitchell had disobeyed Landry's orders and gone into the compound in Off the Grid because he was right and had good reason to be so, it would have made all the difference. But not only was he wrong, his comrades and the audience could all see that he was wrong... so he came off looking foolish and arrogant instead.

It's all a question of how it's handled by the writing.

[ParadoxRealities]

Just a point on this insubordination thing: it's not really possible for officers of the same rank to be insubordinate to each other, mission-control notwithstanding. One could disobey the other's direct order if he/she were in charge of the mission, but insubordination is a rank issue.
Colonel O'Neill and Colonel Maybourne couldn't be insubordinate to each other, no matter their circumstances. Colonel Maybourne did accuse Major Carter of insubordination in Foothold when she called him a jackass for breaking the foothold protocol and jeopardising the planet. But Carter and Mitchell can't be insubordinate towards each other while they're both Lt. Colonels.

Insubordination is disobeying (inculding declaring intent to disobey) a lawful order given by a superior commissioned officer. A "superior commissioned officer" is a commissioned officer superior in rank or command, not just rank. Sam was the mission CO, Mitchell was under her; she gave him an legal order, he violated it.

I also loved that scene in singularity. I think she had an idea of what would happen, but wasn't entirely sure. Jack actually helped save her from a court marshal by purposefully not asking her WHY she did it. He asked her "how did you KNOW Captain?" He skipped over the why, pretending that it was obvious, and asked how she had figured it out. this allowed her to state her idea without lying about how confident she was in it, and he took it as a good reason for her to disobey his order (whether it was or not).

[Cherriey]

Insubordination is the reason I love this show. =0)

[scarimor]

And if I have ruined everyones enjoyment of the thread, I would rather hear it from them, then from you, a single individual on the thread.

You haven't. Not at all. If someone has told you that you are ruining everyone's enjoyment of the thread, they are talking rubbish - they didn't ask me for a start. (I wonder if they asked anyone at all?).

[scarimor]

Insubordination is the reason I love this show. =0)

One of my reasons too!