Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Uber]

i think i should lead SG-1. why, because, i have gateworld, i know whats coming.



i have a reallllllllyyyy stupid questions, what does 'TPTB" stand for????

TPTB is an acronym...it means "The Powers That Be," which loosely refers to the suits, execs, producers et al behind the show and the franchise.

[RealmOfX]

SNIP
There should be a military prescence perhaps, but I don't think that an SG team *has* to be lead by a military person.
SNIP

I can tell why there is though. A civilian can be in a supervisor position and give work direction to the military they cannot however command AF units.

The military being military just want a clear chain of command and head off issues like what an SG team does when it runs into trouble. EG. a team is lead by a civilian and they run into trouble. Civilian doesn't see it as a threat, the military do. Civilian and military argue over who's in charge and whether the situation is a military one and whilst they are arguing they are surrounded and killed.

Yes an extreme example but that is their reasoning. Actually they have addressed this conflict in command in SGA with Weir and Sheppard in Hot Zone.

[Dani347]

The military being military just want a clear chain of command and head off issues like what an SG team does when it runs into trouble. EG. a team is lead by a civilian and they run into trouble. Civilian doesn't see it as a threat, the military do. Civilian and military argue over who's in charge and whether the situation is a military one and whilst they are arguing they are surrounded and killed.

But, couldn't that scenario happen just as well with a military leader, as long as civillians are a part of the team? You have a military leader. That doesn't stop a civilian on the team from arguing. There could still be an argument and the team could still get killed. But, the civillians are following the military commander. It's not automatic that because it's military they're more likely to follow. But, if the team was being led by a civilian, then wouldn't that civilian's word be bottom line, just like the military leader is? I mean, I don't see why, if a civilian was placed at the head of a team by, say General Landry, if that's his right to assign commanders, would be any less the clear leader than a military person. It would still be a clear chain of command and that chain would stop with the civilian. Or why a good member of the team wouldn't listen to a direct order if given by a civilian, provided they're the one in charge.

[RealmOfX]

But, couldn't that scenario happen just as well with a military leader, as long as civillians are a part of the team? You have a military leader. That doesn't stop a civilian on the team from arguing. There could still be an argument and the team could still get killed. But, the civillians are following the military commander. It's not automatic that because it's military they're more likely to follow. But, if the team was being led by a civilian, then wouldn't that civilian's word be bottom line, just like the military leader is? I mean, I don't see why, if a civilian was placed at the head of a team by, say General Landry, if that's his right to assign commanders, would be any less the clear leader than a military person. It would still be a clear chain of command and that chain would stop with the civilian. Or why a good member of the team wouldn't listen to a direct order if given by a civilian, provided they're the one in charge.

Yup, I agree but then I'm a civilian.

A General cannot assign a civilian as a commander of a military unit, a civilian can be appointed leader of a mission with military personnel in it but there would be a military commander and all military personnel would take their orders from this person. The civilian leader may give work directives to the military but they cannot order (command) them.

The military position can be traced back to a command regulation which basically says a civilian cannot command an AF officer. There is a difference between issuing a work directive and issuing a command. Civilians see them collectively as "orders" but the military do not.

I'm not explaining this very well. Let's see, the way it was explained to me is that the military are not worried so much about what the civilians will do as what the military personnel would do. One of my cousins is a corporal and he once told me that he really, really, really hates it when there are civilians in the mix because it's usually the grunts at the bottom of the food chain that get caught in the middle. Like in SGA in the ep Hot Zone where Weir and Sheppard were in disagreement. The sergeant hesitated a very long time to do as ordered because he was trying to determine what had precedence - the work directive from Weir to Sheppard or the order from Sheppard. This is what the military is trying to avoid apparently. Yes, the sergeant has to obey orders from Sheppard but the sergeant also knew that Sheppard is supposed to follow work directives from Weir, the situation was dire and there was a conflict of authority. Ultimately the sergeant chose to follow orders like he should however if Sheppard had of been in charge then there would have been no conflict of authority and no hesitation.

[suse]

Yes, it is a comparison of different things, but I think that's okay. I understand the comparison, at least. My interpretation is, Lightsabre is saying that if we can accept the idea of someone like Sam being on the team, even though she most likely wouldn't be in real life, then it's not anymore of a stretch to accept someone like Mitchell as a leader. (Or, maybe Daniel would be a better comparison) Yes, it's comparing being on the team to being leader, but it's also comparing two unrealistic (depending on whose opinion) ideas in the real world which are accepted in the Stargate world. So, I think the comparison is okay, and do have some similarities, even if it isn't strict leader/leader comparison.

I don't think we are going to agree on this. No harm, no foul.

Dani437 said:

On the other hand, it seems like other people are saying that enough has been given to make Sam's placement on the team a lot more realistic than Mitchell's leadership, and within the framework of the show, Sam being on the team doesn't stretch credibility, but Mitchell being leader does.

Yup, much close to what I'm thinking.

Dani437 said:

So, I see both sides, I think it just depends on what you're comparing.

One could even say apples and oranges are being compared.

G, DRLH

Dani437 said:

Yes, this fence is very comfortable.

Just look out for spikes and barbed wire.

Suse

[Mattathias2.0]

Are you serious?

"Collateral Damage" was the first one. Cameron went off alone with a pretty lady, and then was framed for murder. It's a good thing their government's morals were WAY off, otherwise Cameron would have been in serious trouble.

"Stronghold" was next. Cameron went into heavily armed, enemy territory without back-up, blindly expecting to be able to defend himself, but obviously knew that his actions would require Sam and Daniel to leave their positions to help him (as evidenced by his brilliant question, "What took you so long?").

"Off The Grid" came after that, where Cameron's actions almost got himself killed, sure. But his actions also lead to the team being stranded offworld with enemies on their tails. At least if they'd "stayed under the radar," they wouldn't have been stranded on enemy terrain. The fact that he demanded attention is what ultimately screwed them over in the long-run.

"Arthur's Mantle" is the last chapter in this little saga, significantly less damaging than its predecessors.

And would you agree with O'Neill's, Hammond's and Carter's in "The Other Side"? This was a huge moral problem.

How about Carter's in "Gemini"? Created a Galactic problem.

O'Neill's in "Menace" (killing Reece)? Created a Galactic problem.

Don't just put blame on Mitchell without including other team member's bad choices.

Carter's happened after 7 years in the program. O'Neill's happened between 4 and 5 years returned. And Hammond's happened a long time into his career.

Mattathias

[RealmOfX]

And would you agree with O'Neill's, Hammond's and Carter's in "The Other Side"? This was a huge moral problem.

How about Carter's in "Gemini"? Created a Galactic problem.

O'Neill's in "Menace" (killing Reece)? Created a Galactic problem.

Don't just put blame on Mitchell without including other team member's bad choices.

Carter's happened after 7 years in the program. O'Neill's happened between 4 and 5 years returned. And Hammond's happened a long time into his career.

Mattathias

Actually we aren't talking about bad choices - everyone makes them.

We are discussing who should lead SG-1. Some people think that Mitchell should not lead because of his maverick behaviour. The highlighting of the so called bad choices is to illustrate the maverick behaviour not just to say he made a bad choice. There is a difference.

[suse]

Ya know, I honestly don't see the difference in what the two of you were saying. Just because Landry didn't come out and say he vetted the files does not mean he didn't. As Scarimor said, he'd pull in inappropriate ones like the ones that were already assigned to teams - or no longer part of the SGC.. Doesn't mean he didn't give Mitchell wide latitude. If he didn't vet anything Mitchell would get the cook, the dishwasher, the General himself. He'd (more likely have Walter) pull the inappropriate to make the job easier for Mitchell.

Landry gave Mitchell the files for the available appropriate people. Hence they were vetted.

What's the issue?
Suse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answering the charge that Scarimor and I were saying the same thing and that I was simply arguing in circles.

Scarimor, you make a lot of claims about me, so let's look at the posts shall we?
Post #1160

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarimor
Answering a couple of issues here: when Mitchell reported to Landry in Avalon, there most definitely were stipulations as to who he could pick for the team. Landry gave him a stack of personnel files to choose from - and Carter, Daniel and Teal'c were not in them because, as he pointed out, they were all assigned elsewhere. That stack of files was limited to those people that Landry wanted Mitchell to choose from for his team; and later we saw Mitchell interviewing some of those people - without much success.

Highlight is mine.
YOu quite clearly say that Landry vetted the files

post #1162

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsabre
I don't think those files were the people Landry wanted him to pick from, They were all the available people on the base.

And I've said here that I don't think Landry went through the files, but simply gave Mitchell a list of everyone qualified.
You replied
post #1163

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarimor
Yeees. Available for Mitchell to pick his team from. As in, these are the personnel files of the people I've decided you can choose from, son. Take your pick...

Again, highlight is mine and again, you hold to your line that Landry had vetted the files.

post #1164

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsabre
No, available as in, 'these are all the people on the base who could join your team, son'.
Not as in Landry had vetted the files already

.


Again, I restate my point simply so it can be understood.

post #1222
Now you retreat from your previously held position and claim you were using 'sarcasm'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarimor
It was obvious what the files were for. They were the people Mitchell could pick his team from. Who could miss it? That's why I rolled my eyes and used gentle sarcasm

.


Note that here you seem to miss the main thrust of the argument, that being whether or not Landry had gone through the files first and disqualified some of them.

now, Gategypsy joins in this little 'debate' and apparently read your comments above like I did.
post #1228

Quote:
Originally Posted by GateGypsy
Scarrimor - I am with Lightsabre in that I think the General was giving him the files of the personnell that were available - I do not think that General Landry had pre-approved anyone

Now, finally, you retreat from your position and maintain that you never said the above.
Post #1234

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarimor
I did not say he had pre-approved anyone. There is no argument to be had here as far as I can see - that's why I came back to it.

So above in posts 1160 and 1163 you didn't post those? Or you just can't remember posting them?
EIther way, it clearly shows you DID say he pre-approved people.

And of course, you final dig at me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarimor
haven't a clue what Lightsabre was going on about, to be honest

.


Is this cause you can't remember your own posts? Or cuase you simply need to end it now a moderator has joined in?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Edited to make quotes easier to read.

[Dani347]

Yup, I agree but then I'm a civilian.

A General cannot assign a civilian as a commander of a military unit, a civilian can be appointed leader of a mission with military personnel in it but there would be a military commander and all military personnel would take their orders from this person. The civilian leader may give work directives to the military but they cannot order (command) them.

The military position can be traced back to a command regulation which basically says a civilian cannot command an AF officer. There is a difference between issuing a work directive and issuing a command. Civilians see them collectively as "orders" but the military do not.

I'm not explaining this very well. Let's see, the way it was explained to me is that the military are not worried so much about what the civilians will do as what the military personnel would do. One of my cousins is a corporal and he once told me that he really, really, really hates it when there are civilians in the mix because it's usually the grunts at the bottom of the food chain that get caught in the middle. Like in SGA in the ep Hot Zone where Weir and Sheppard were in disagreement. The sergeant hesitated a very long time to do as ordered because he was trying to determine what had precedence - the work directive from Weir to Sheppard or the order from Sheppard. This is what the military is trying to avoid apparently. Yes, the sergeant has to obey orders from Sheppard but the sergeant also knew that Sheppard is supposed to follow work directives from Weir, the situation was dire and there was a conflict of authority. Ultimately the sergeant chose to follow orders like he should however if Sheppard had of been in charge then there would have been no conflict of authority and no hesitation.

Hmm, maybe we should start another thread about civilian leadership and possibilities of them. Because I could say a lot about it. So, forgive this little sidetrack. I accept that on the show that the leader of the teams is going to be military. I just don't think it has to be that way. And, it seems that the rule is there because military people wouldn't accept the word of a civilian. In the Atlantis case (and I don't watch the show, so I'm just going by this) shouldn't there have been a clear command that one person was supposed to have the final word? And, if that person on top is the civilian, that person gives the orders. Whoever is in charge should be in charge. No, well, this person is in charge of the whole thing, but I'm supposed to obey this person instead. You're commanding officer is the leader of your team. Period. And, military personnel would obey the commander.

[RealmOfX]

Hmm, maybe we should start another thread about civilian leadership and possibilities of them. Because I could say a lot about it. So, forgive this little sidetrack. I accept that on the show that the leader of the teams is going to be military. I just don't think it has to be that way. And, it seems that the rule is there because military people wouldn't accept the word of a civilian. In the Atlantis case (and I don't watch the show, so I'm just going by this) shouldn't there have been a clear command that one person was supposed to have the final word? And, if that person on top is the civilian, that person gives the orders. Whoever is in charge should be in charge. No, well, this person is in charge of the whole thing, but I'm supposed to obey this person instead. You're commanding officer is the leader of your team. Period. And, military personnel would obey the commander.

Actually another thread might be a good idea as other people have mentioned it.

I actually don't really see it as a sidetrack though because the poll has two civilians in it so it is an issue that needs consideration.

<edit - Yay! 100 I'm no longer Jaffa Fodder!>

[Lightsabre]

Ya know, I honestly don't see the difference in what the two of you were saying. Just because Landry didn't come out and say he vetted the files does not mean he didn't. As Scarimor said, he'd pull in inappropriate ones like the ones that were already assigned to teams - or no longer part of the SGC.. Doesn't mean he didn't give Mitchell wide latitude. If he didn't vet anything Mitchell would get the cook, the dishwasher, the General himself. He'd (more likely have Walter) pull the inappropriate to make the job easier for Mitchell.

Landry gave Mitchell the files for the available appropriate people. Hence they were vetted.

What's the issue?
Suse

The issue is I was accused of something blatently untrue and this person is always very aggressive and dismissive in replies to me, yet when a moderator clears it up, why, all of a sudden, they were arguing the same thing as I was.
So I felt I needed to defend myself and post what actually was said.

[the dancer of spaz]

And would you agree with O'Neill's, Hammond's and Carter's in "The Other Side"? This was a huge moral problem.

How about Carter's in "Gemini"? Created a Galactic problem.

O'Neill's in "Menace" (killing Reece)? Created a Galactic problem.

Don't just put blame on Mitchell without including other team member's bad choices.

Well... As a matter of fact, I HAVE said that the other characters have made mistakes before. Huge ones. However, as I've also said, they've had MORE than enough opportunities to redeem themselves. Your next statement outlines the problem with Mitchell quite well, actually...

Carter's happened after 7 years in the program. O'Neill's happened between 4 and 5 years returned. And Hammond's happened a long time into his career.

There ya go. Seven years, four years, 30 years. And Mitchell gets significantly less time than the others to make big mistakes, because... why?

[Dani347]

Okay, on SG1, if Teal'c was commander (if you feel that wouldn't happen suspend disbelief for a second) do you think either Mitchell or Sam would be less likely to obey his orders? I think it's possible other teams might have a problem with who to obey if there were military and civilians, but it seems like the people who make up SG1 wouldn't have that problem. Teal'c has a lot of experience commanding others, there wouldn't be an issue of respect from his teammates. If the brass came down clearly as saying that the buck stops with Teal'c, I can't imagine any member of SG1 not affording him the same respect and obedience that they afforded Jack. So, while it's not going to happen, I don't it would be because there would be a problem of chain of command with this team.

[the dancer of spaz]

And so have you. I have not been looking for any and every reason for Sam not to lead. that is simply your prejudice against me, and it is what turns these discussions into personal baiting matches. You and the others assume I when I oppose Carter leading I'm attacking her and feel you can attack me.

Silly me, I wasn't expecting this line of thought to continue... However, since you started it up again, no one is attacking you. Multiple people are disagreeing with you, occasionally an individual says a snide comment, but you've proven that you can defend yourself in that department.

I resent the implication taht I'm scrabbling around for reasons for her not to lead. I've presented them over and over agian and I feel they are valid.
If you don't, that's your right, but you do NOT have the right to imply that my argument is weak simply becuase you disagree.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see you oppose Carter, I see your preference of Mitchell and Ben Browder over Carter and Amanda Tapping - which is perfectly fine, because that's your choice. Cool. That's what this is place is for, after all.

And, sorry, but I think I can imply that your argument is weak if I disagree with you, as the very reason I disagree with you is because your evidence is faulty. That's the whole point of debating. I postulate, you disagree, and vice-versa.

I've said on NUMEROUS occasions that I would've accepted an experienced, tenured, professional Colonel Cameron Mitchell from SG-fill in the blank as the leader of SG-1 over Sam, solely because it would've been plausible. It would've made sense, and it would've maintained some semblance of logic. It wouldn't have entirely insulted our intelligence.

Heck, I would've taken Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell over Lt. Colonel Sam Carter if they'd established that he had the qualifications to not only surpass every, single other qualified SG-leader on the base, but also the qualifications to lead the frontline team. I would've taken Mitchell if they'd kept his development in line with how he was established in Avalon I through TPTB.

Yes, I would've been annoyed that they'd written the arc in such a way as to seamlessly write Carter out of that role, but I would've gotten over it. Eventually. SG-1 would've AT LEAST been in capable, competent hands, whether they were Carter's or not.

The current situation we're in, with the Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell we have, makes no sense. It boggles the mind. It makes the fact that Sam's not the leader all the more disturbing. And all the more laughable.

And yes, it does suggest that a new character is more qualified (in the eyes of the real life powers) to lead the main characters than an older, more developed character, as long as the new character is male. I know how much you hate that argument, but that is the case. They'd evidently been talking about having Ben Browder on the show since the beginning of Season Eight.

That means that the concern was there, the concern was quite evident, and they were all feeling pressure to fill that male lead void - even before it was an issue yet. Rather than placing faith in the three characters who'd been there for nearly a decade, rather than allowing the hundreds of thousands of fans of THESE characters to show their loyalty and preference, rather than giving these actors the chance to carry the series on their own, and YES, rather than allowing the second-billed actor (who happened to also be female) play the lead role, they took what they thought were preventative measures, by ensuring the Male Lead Persona was filled.

The difference between your argument and mine - since we're still comparing them - is that you haven't EVER wanted Sam to lead, whereas I would've let this go long ago... way back in October, in fact. The fact that the topic keeps coming up without people like you or me bringing it up says a lot about how well Cameron's fitting into the role. It means the deranged Sam fans aren't the only ones who have an issue with the way things have developed.

[stargate barbie]

Okay, on SG1, if Teal'c was commander (if you feel that wouldn't happen suspend disbelief for a second) do you think either Mitchell or Sam would be less likely to obey his orders? I think it's possible other teams might have a problem with who to obey if there were military and civilians, but it seems like the people who make up SG1 wouldn't have that problem. Teal'c has a lot of experience commanding others, there wouldn't be an issue of respect from his teammates. If the brass came down clearly as saying that the buck stops with Teal'c, I can't imagine any member of SG1 not affording him the same respect and obedience that they afforded Jack. So, while it's not going to happen, I don't it would be because there would be a problem of chain of command with this team.

personally speaking, if teal'cs interests didn't largely lie (and rightly so) with forming the free jaffa nation, and if the lack of a military position wasn't a factor, then i would probably say teal'c would make the most logical choice for leading the team.

considering the fact that he has the tactical and strategic awareness, more experience than all team members combined, and is very level headed (excluding incidents of jaffa revenge things). he has experience working with the sgc, with daniel and sam, and might be able to make cam stop and listen if by no other means than intimidation!

for me, the team should be lead by sam carter, but my second choice (and only because of the fact that he has made it clear that his long term loyalty lies with the free jaffa nation, that he is not of earths military, hence not as familiar with how things work in a military run operation, and other small issues) is teal'c.

as the team stands now, Sam and Cam are officially Co-Leading SG-1. but as i see it, cameron is currently the least ready of the team to do this. however, considering the nature of the team, that the others have worked and fought side by side together for so long. that they know each other better than they probably know their own families, that they know how they each operate, that they have had almost a decade to become familiar with how things are done in the types of situations that they face constantly in their inter galactic war, etc... given all of these variable, i see the team as being more a group of equals, each one taking charge when requiring their own specific specialties, and when a default leader is needed for standard 'ok, lets start collecting samples for the mineral survey in the north' situations, then the default military leader takes over and dishes out the orders. in this case, either sam or cam.

but thats not essentially what this thread is about. this thread is about who we think should lead sg-1. does it mean, given the current situation? given the fact that the original team went their separate ways for a few months and cameron was the only team member? given the last 8 years of history? taking each characters known histories into account? or any other variable among many?
i suppose thats up to us to decide.

for me, and my interpretation of the question i still pick sam. but were it intended to be a different interpretation, the only other logical option for me at the moment would be teal'c. thats not to say i dislike the other characters. i like both daniel and cameron quite a lot. i don't see this being resolved in this thread. while it is occasionally a fun debate to get into, i don't expect to change anyones mind on their choice, and i find myself bored repeatedly with the ever changing vector and yet often circular nature of the debate. i get irritated with how personal people seem to make it.

one minute its a case of it being a totally fictional show, so i think my chosen character should lead (or often yours shouldn't) because it works for the shows dynamic, or whatever.
the next minute, when an arguing point gets to a certain stage, the debate changes to it being unrealistic to have this happen in the show with this character, so this unrealistic character shouldn't lead, or this characters history doesn't make sense to me so he/she shouldn't lead.
it's bordering on ridiculous at this point. the nature of the debate seems to be in a constant state of flux. and now i'm rambling.

i'm going to revert back to my first posts in this thread on the topic. the bullet points i posted early on are why i think sam carter should lead. if anyone cares, my second choice would be teal'c, but thats looking at it from a different perspective. again i find myself bored with the debate, and i'm taking another break until something peaks my interest. and even then i might not bother for a while.

oiy.

end of rant/ramble.