Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[suse]

How?
I mean, let look at what he does. He runs off, with no backup.
That does not risk anyone's life.
If Sam and SG-1 and the rest came after him, they did it because he was going after the mission goal. Further, if the rings hadn't been broken, he wouldn't have needed backup.

In arguing against my examples of 'The First Commandment' and 'Solitudes', people made the argument that disobedience is a lesser crime if:
A)The perpertrator is right, ie but for their argument/actions, something bad would have happened or something feared was not going to happen and
B)That they did not risk the life of any personell but themselves.

Mitchell running off without backup means he is in line with point B). No one else's life was risked. Even if they came after him, they were going there anyway. No one was MORE at risk because of Mitchell.
Mitchell also meets point A) on the list. But for Mitchell's actions, the Ha'tak would have gone and Teal'c and Bra'tac would have been lost.
Therefore, Mitchell was 'right' in his actions.

As argued by some of you, Mitchell's offence of disobedience meets the criteria for mitigation.

I also fail to see how Mitchell running off takes command from Carter.

Er, he was called back by the *commander of the mission*. In a combat situation, which was not the case in Solitudes or The First Commandment. He was not *told* to go after mission goal, for that matter he was specifically told not to! Obviously the Ha'tak would not have been gone as he was still messing with the controls for the rings *that he had no idea how to use* when Sam and Daniel came up. Guess what? The rings *were* broken. Who made them work? Sam! What a surprise!

Though I agree with the person who said having him go up alone was a bad idea. They'd have not needed to have Sam and Daniel stay on the ground if Sam and Daniel hadn't have needed to break off and go after a loose cannon. The Jaffa would have been contained and/or neutralized. Sam altered *her* plans to work with the new situation handed her. That's what a good leader does.

All these points have already been mentioned. Several times. We will never agree on this. Why don't we both avoid using these examples again.

What you see as bravery and being a leader I see as impulsive, being a loose cannon and disobeying orders.

Do you disagree that Landry said Carter was in charge of the mission?

Suse

[Lightsabre]

Er, he was called back by the *commander of the mission*. In a combat situation, which was not the case in Solitudes or The First Commandment. He was not *told* to go after mission goal, for that matter he was specifically told not to!

Yes, this was the order he disobeyed. We agreed on that.
My post above was the mitigatig arguments given for Carter and how Mitchell fits them as well.

Obviously the Ha'tak would not have been gone as he was still messing with the controls for the rings *that he had no idea how to use* when Sam and Daniel came up. Guess what? The rings *were* broken. Who made them work? Sam! What a surprise!

They only go there in time BECAUSE he ran ahead and Sam was only there because she and Daniel chased Mitchell.
If not for that, they would not have been close enough to get into the Ha'tak.

Though I agree with the person who said having him go up alone was a bad idea. They'd have not needed to have Sam and Daniel stay on the ground if Sam and Daniel hadn't have needed to break off and go after a loose cannon.

Yes, and they would have lost Teal'c

The Jaffa would have been contained and/or neutralized. Sam altered *her* plans to work with the new situation handed her. That's what a good leader does.

Yes, a good leader needs to improvise. However, at the time Mitchell entered, the jaffa inside were contained and neutralised.
Had the rings worked, there would be no problems.
this however, avoids the point of my post, which is how Mitchell fits the mitigating circumstances listed above.

All these points have already been mentioned. Several times. We will never agree on this. Why don't we both avoid using these examples again.

Simply because I'm not arguing about Stronghold. You are.
I'm simply fitting Mitchell into the mitigating circumstances advanced.
Also, you still haven't explained how his actions took control from Carter.

What you see as bravery and being a leader I see as impulsive, being a loose cannon and disobeying orders.

HUH?
I never said that his actions were laudable. Far from it.
I do see Mitchell as brave and a good leader, but I wouldn't use that example to characterise it.

Do you disagree that Landry said Carter was in charge of the mission?

Suse

No, Carter was in charge.

[suse]

[QUOTE=Lightsabre]What?

Carter deliberately put her life at risk for the hunch that Cassie wouldn't blow up. She disobeyed a direct order because she made a promise to a child.
As I said before, Carter keeping the promise is laudable, but she made prior one to the US Air Force and the people of America.
She doesn't get to decide what she does with her life. She abrogated that right.
This scene did not show that Carter does not follow blindly, it shows she's far too emotional.

And what reason did Cam have? He was being "far too emotional" when he ran off to save Teal'c. And made Sam and Daniel do exactly the same thing his friend had to do..pull his butt out of the fire. They are lucky *they* didn't end up with shrapnel in their head.

Following orders does not make them yes-men.

From your own fingers...

Wow. Mitchell sure isn't a yes-man. Can anyone name an instance he has followed orders in a battle situation (while on SG-1)?

So Sam following orders makes her a follower, not a leader. But following orders does not make her a yes-man. Please explain.

Mitchell is ridiculous?

the answer would be...YES! At least when he goes off half-cocked. And I've thought the same about Daniel, so I'm not picking on Cam.
Sam iis far from perfect but she's made less mistakes in 9 years than mitchell has in one.

How was he wrong? Ok, his story was dodgy, but other than that, how was what he did wrong?

Er, he was told to keep a low profile?

[Deevil]

Capt. Carter cannot be compared to Lt. Col. Mitchell. Rank makes a difference, and I cannot figure how anyone can completely ignore that fact.

Yes, Sam has made her share of mistakes. But she was not a Lt. Col. at the time, with the respect and accountablity that is accorded to that postition. She is in a lesser position, where the overall accountability was less.

It may prove to be better in argueing Mitchell's position if you argued the mistakes Jack made, while his position/rank was on step higher, they still are accorded the same respect and accoutability.

Rank makes a difference.

And I'm sorry, running off in the middle of combat to do your own thing, would have in days gone by had him shot for desertion. He did the wrong thing, and no one in SG-1 has ever taken off in a firefight.

[Lightsabre]

[QUOTE=suse]

What?


And what reason did Cam have? He was being "far too emotional" when he ran off to save Teal'c. And made Sam and Daniel do exactly the same thing his friend had to do..pull his butt out of the fire. They are lucky *they* didn't end up with shrapnel in their head.

Cam's friend had JUST died. Nothing had happened to cause Carter to be emotionally off balance.

From your own fingers...

Wow. Mitchell sure isn't a yes-man. Can anyone name an instance he has followed orders in a battle situation (while on SG-1)?

Name an instance, other than stronghold, when he was in a battle situation and subordinate.
you can't, because there aren't any.

[
So Sam following orders makes her a follower, not a leader. But following orders does not make her a yes-man. Please explain.

Well it's very simple. A yes man simply tells you what you need to hear and never disagrees.
Sam doesn't do that.
A follower doesn't push themselves forward and doesn't particularly like having the mantle of command draped on them. Further, a follower accedes easily to a firm command.
Carter DOES do this.

the answer would be...YES! At least when he goes off half-cocked. And I've thought the same about Daniel, so I'm not picking on Cam.

Umm, ok, guess we'll agree to disagree there.

Sam iis far from perfect but she's made less mistakes in 9 years than mitchell has in one.

ooookay. agree to disagree again.

[
Er, he was told to keep a low profile?

And he did. They had NO way of knowing he was from SG-1 till after they were captured.
All they thought was that he was a rival drug dealer.

[Lightsabre]

Capt. Carter cannot be compared to Lt. Col. Mitchell. Rank makes a difference, and I cannot figure how anyone can completely ignore that fact.

Well then fine. I've explained it over and over.

Yes, Sam has made her share of mistakes. But she was not a Lt. Col. at the time, with the respect and accountablity that is accorded to that postition. She is in a lesser position, where the overall accountability was less.

Can you explain this? A captain is less accountable for disobeying a direct order than a LT Col?? You cannot mean that, so could you please explain?

It may prove to be better in argueing Mitchell's position if you argued the mistakes Jack made, while his position/rank was on step higher, they still are accorded the same respect and accoutability.

But the debate is Cam V Sam.

Rank makes a difference.

Not in this instance.

And I'm sorry, running off in the middle of combat to do your own thing, would have in days gone by had him shot for desertion. He did the wrong thing, and no one in SG-1 has ever taken off in a firefight.

Daniel did. 'Lost City'.

[suse]

[

QUOTE=Lightsabre]Yes, this was the order he disobeyed. We agreed on that.
My post above was the mitigatig arguments given for Carter and how Mitchell fits them as well.

I think I missed something somewhere...

They only go there in time BECAUSE he ran ahead and Sam was only there because she and Daniel chased Mitchell.
If not for that, they would not have been close enough to get into the Ha'tak.Yes, and they would have lost Teal'c

And how do you know this? Do you know what Sam's plan was? sam has been in battle often enough to know that the snakeheads are likely to try to take off. She'd likely have had that covered, as detail oriented as she is.

Yes, a good leader needs to improvise. However, at the time Mitchell entered, the jaffa inside were contained and neutralised.
Had the rings worked, there would be no problems.
this however, avoids the point of my post, which is how Mitchell fits the mitigating circumstances listed above.

Yes the ones inside were. But they were shot at from outside. Because the situation was not contained when he abandoned his place post in a battle. Canon says the rings did not work. There *was* a problem. Mitchell did not have the know how to fix it.

Simply because I'm not arguing about Stronghold. You are.
I'm simply fitting Mitchell into the mitigating circumstances advanced.
Also, you still haven't explained how his actions took control from Carter.

Mitigating shmitigating. He disobeyed orders knowing that Sam and Daniel would back him up. I call that (a) controlling (personality).

I never said that his actions were laudable. Far from it.
I do see Mitchell as brave and a good leader, but I wouldn't use that example to characterise it.

I never saw you say they weren't. As far as I recall you only said he was a better leader than Sam because she couldn't control her subordinates.

No, Carter was in charge.

Thank you. :-)

[ParadoxRealities]

How?
I mean, let look at what he does. He runs off, with no backup.
That does not risk anyone's life.
If Sam and SG-1 and the rest came after him, they did it because he was going after the mission goal. Further, if the rings hadn't been broken, he wouldn't have needed backup.

In arguing against my examples of 'The First Commandment' and 'Solitudes', people made the argument that disobedience is a lesser crime if:
A)The perpertrator is right, ie but for their argument/actions, something bad would have happened or something feared was not going to happen and
B)That they did not risk the life of any personell but themselves.

Mitchell running off without backup means he is in line with point B). No one else's life was risked. Even if they came after him, they were going there anyway. No one was MORE at risk because of Mitchell.
Mitchell also meets point A) on the list. But for Mitchell's actions, the Ha'tak would have gone and Teal'c and Bra'tac would have been lost.
Therefore, Mitchell was 'right' in his actions.

As argued by some of you, Mitchell's offence of disobedience meets the criteria for mitigation.

I also fail to see how Mitchell running off takes command from Carter.

I believe we have already been over the 'didn't risk anyone elses life'. If you would like to address a specific counterargument directly, please specify which (it not clear to me, at least).

The entire outcome of saving Teal'c/Bra'tac was discovered after the fact. Yes, time was of the essence, but the ship had not yet powered up, so there was no actual time frame. Therefore, the outcome can no excuse his actions.

Had the rings worked, there would be no problems.

(Example after the fact) Many other things could have gone wrong, none of which he addressed by NOT waiting for backup.

He took command away from Carter by first not consulting her on his advance, then by violating her direct order, and also by forcing her to move contrary to the plan.

[suse]

[QUOTE]

Well then fine. I've explained it over and over.

More than one person thinks your explanation does not hold water.

Can you explain this? A captain is less accountable for disobeying a direct order than a LT Col?? You cannot mean that, so could you please explain?

Less accountable, no. But the higher in rank you are the more *responsibility* you bear to set a good example

Deevil? Please answer this. I'm getting tongue-tied. :-)

But the debate is Cam V Sam.

In response to the comment that no one on SG-1 has left their post in a firefight.

Daniel did. 'Lost City'.

See your respinse above. Though I concede you didn't bring all SG-1 into the discussion.

[DEM]

Less accountable, no. But the higher in rank you are the more *responsibility* you bear to set a good example

In other words, a Lt Colonel -- the one who would lead -- is expected to behave in a manner befitting that rank and station. (yes?)

[suse]

[

QUOTE=Lightsabre]
Cam's friend had JUST died. Nothing had happened to cause Carter to be emotionally off balance.

And he went into a battle situation? That's even worse. I thought his friend died when Cam was off-world and he was notified after he came back. *Landry* should have never let him so. If Sam knew *she* should never have let him go. Knowing someone is dying is one thing...it's rather hard to keep it togather after shock has set in.

Er, (Solitudes) she was holding a child who was going to be left alone to die (or not) in a cold, pitch black bunker. She sure seemed emotional in the elevator before she went back to Cassie (without endangering anyone else).

(The First Commandment)And Jack saw her point when she contradicted him. Eventually. And not in a battle situation. She didn't have to be emotional - only use logic with her CO to show she could do her job - to use Jonas's emotions against him.

Name an instance, other than stronghold, when he was in a battle situation and subordinate.
you can't, because there aren't any

.

Touche. So he was a leader going off half-cocked. This is better? (I feel like I'm channeling Londo from B5s voice patterns.

Well it's very simple. A yes man simply tells you what you need to hear and never disagrees.
Sam doesn't do that.
A follower doesn't push themselves forward and doesn't particularly like having the mantle of command draped on them. Further, a follower accedes easily to a firm command.
Carter DOES do this.

THanks for the explanation. Sam was clearly 2IC S1-S7, she wouldn't push herself forward unless she truly disagreed. And she did several times. If commanded again she did accede as the firm command usually had an implied "Do you know what a court-matial is?" attached to it. I thought Sam did fine leading. SHe wouldn't have been so annoyed at Jack for the percieved not trusting her issue if she didn't feel ready.

And he did. They had NO way of knowing he was from SG-1 till after they were captured.
All they thought was that he was a rival drug dealer

.

I suppose that was a case of hiding in plain sight?

[suse]

In other words, a Lt Colonel -- the one who would lead, is expected to behave in a manner befitting that rank and station. (yes?)

Exactly!

[Lightsabre]

In other words, a Lt Colonel -- the one who would lead -- is expected to behave in a manner befitting that rank and station. (yes?)

Any officer rank is a leadership rank.
Captain's command.
So do liutenants.

[Lightsabre]

[QUOTE=suse]

More than one person thinks your explanation does not hold water.

That is their right.
However, I'm not explaining it again. IT's been explained. Agree or don't.
however, I will say it again, for the comparision I am making, rank is irrelevant.

Less accountable, no. But the higher in rank you are the more *responsibility* you bear to set a good example

Umm, I don;t see how this matters.
Please explain

[
In response to the comment that no one on SG-1 has left their post in a firefight.

Again, don't understand.

[
See your respinse above. Though I concede you didn't bring all SG-1 into the discussion.

No, I didn't I took the first instance I remembered.
I only needed one to refute the claim.

[Lightsabre]

[QUOTE=suse]

And he went into a battle situation? That's even worse. I thought his friend died when Cam was off-world and he was notified after he came back. *Landry* should have never let him so. If Sam knew *she* should never have let him go. Knowing someone is dying is one thing...it's rather hard to keep it togather after shock has set in.
[/quote[
This has been debated already.
It was agreed Landry should have stopped him. Carter should have stopped him and he should have stopped himself. All 3 stuffed up.

Er, (Solitudes) she was holding a child who was going to be left alone to die (or not) in a cold, pitch black bunker. She sure seemed emotional in the elevator before she went back to Cassie (without endangering anyone else).

I don't see your point.

(The First Commandment)And Jack saw her point when she contradicted him. Eventually. And not in a battle situation. She didn't have to be emotional - only use logic with her CO to show she could do her job - to use Jonas's emotions against him.

You cannot remove emotion from the equation. He was her fiance, for one thing.

Touche. So he was a leader going off half-cocked. This is better? (I feel like I'm channeling Londo from B5s voice patterns.

Above, you asked and I responded that Carter was the leader. Now you want Mitchell as the leader?
I'm confused.

THanks for the explanation. Sam was clearly 2IC S1-S7, she wouldn't push herself forward unless she truly disagreed. And she did several times.

She rarely pushed for her view,even if she thought O'Neill's decision wrong.
ie Unnatural Selection.
To me, that's a follower. She spoke up, but she never really went beyond that.

If commanded again she did accede as the firm command usually had an implied "Do you know what a court-matial is?" attached to it.

Hmm, so she will obey a command with the threat of a court martial. In Singularity, she quite clearly disobeyed a direct order(a court martialable offence).
THis doesn't hold.

I thought Sam did fine leading. SHe wouldn't have been so annoyed at Jack for the percieved not trusting her issue if she didn't feel ready.

Where was this? I don't remember it.

I suppose that was a case of hiding in plain sight?

My point was that it didn't disobey the 'stay under the radar' order