Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Lightsabre]

Suse, yes you're right. I misread Scarimor's posts too. I didn't really get it until I had a discussion with Scarimor about what he actually meant. But, LOL, at the end of the day, it was a pretty minor point for us all to get our knickers in a twist over!

sorry, but scarimor posted very clearly what we said, gatgypsy, I found the actual post.
But you are right, it's a minor thing.

Lightsabre, don't take it all so to heart honestly. It is just that you're the only one arguing on Mitchell's side so in order for people to make their arguments they have to use your posts.

I don't care about using my posts, but constantly having people yelling, 'your wrong', ;your an idiot' you just argue in circles, is what effects me.
They are NOT key parts of a post, they are not necessary to make a strong argument and they could be lifted out without changing the posters point.
I just lost it, and that post came out.
it was an honest expression of frustration with certain people on here who just like to play point scoring games.

[Lightsabre]

Oh! You're not talking about anything that you perceived actually happened. You're speculating on my feelings and thoughts. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

PArtly,I"m also drawing on my experiences in all the other 'leader' threads.

I know. And I'm sorry that's the position you're in, but don't you think that says something about your case? I've seen many Cameron fans defend him in the past. The fact that they're not stepping up to the plate now is a shame, but it's out of anyone's control. As long as someone's here arguing on either side, this debate will continue.

Not really, most of them just can't be bothered to come here and take this crap. I love to debate and argue. I love to form a good strong position and defend it.
I HATE having to put up with the snide remarks and personal shots from people like scarimor. THAT Is why I'm nearly at the end of my fuse with the entire site.

OK, so let me get this straight...

The fact that you were singing Cameron Mitchell's praises before he was even produced means that you don't at least have some bias towards the character, and perhaps the actor who plays him?

I may be biased towards mitchell. I don't think I am, but it could be unconcious.
I am NOT biased towards BB cause I've seen like one ep of FS and I was about 12 when I did. I've never said a word about BB cause I don't really care.
I"m talking about SG-1 chars NOT actors an I never will.

You've never said anything bad about Amanda Tapping, that is totally true. But I'm not suggesting that you dislike her; I'm suggesting that your admiration for Ben Browder is clouding your argument.

I don't really admire BB. Or I didn't when I first took his side. I do think, after seeing him in SG that's he's pretty good, but I hadn't really seen him act before that.

It would have been completely different if you'd been so ardent AFTER Avalon premiered, but you were debating almost two months before he came onto the scene, two months before we even knew what he had to offer.

How is this relevant? It simply adds more to my side. I've always thought Carter shouldn't lead UNLESS her tech duties were covered.

Without even taking into consideration the development of the existing character, you were willing to accept a brand new character as the leader. To me, that says that, while you don't dislike Amanda Tapping or Sam Carter, your argument is skewed. But that's just my opinion.

No, it says that I believe my point, which I made above.

Nothing was really said when Jack got his promotion and Sam was leading SG-1 last season, because there were no other qualified candidates, and she was the obvious choice. However as soon as one appeared (coincidentally, in the form of Ben Browder), all of a sudden you think he should lead - despite the fact that his qualifications, and the proper reasons behind WHY other SG-leaders were disregarded, have yet to be made clear.

Because RDA was still the lead character in S8. Carter did not lead much, Jack did. This is why S8 arguments don't really work, she wasn't doing much leading.

I will not deny that my favoritism lies in Amanda Tapping/Sam Carter, Chris Judge/Teal'c and Michael Shanks/Daniel Jackson. Those are my preferences. And when it comes to logic, Sam is the only one out of the three of them who would be picked by the U.S. Air Force to lead the team. And if TPTB had not established her character as the sole leader of SG-1 for a year, and if they hadn't hamfisted another, poorly developed character into that role when real life circumstances came into play, I wouldn't have had an issue with Cameron Mitchell. And don't misunderstand me: I don't have any issues with Ben Browder.

But they did. As you told me about Sam's overloaded qualifications, it's cannon.

It just makes no sense for them to back track like this. If they didn't want Sam/AT to lead, they should've introduced a new character in S8. The fact of the matter is, they didn't have the money to do that, so they took the obvious choice in an actor who was already on board. As soon as RDA left, we can assume, the funds became available. But what does it say about a network's priorities, when they choose to essentially demote a character (and all three of the actors), not because the story calls for it, but really because the money's there to have a True Star again?

The actors weren't demoted. None of them lost their billing or anything like that.
As to the character, well, in my opinion, she shouldn't have been lead till there was a new tech. There are many reasons for this which I've been over and over.

It's a disservice to the character of Sam Carter, gender aside. But when you look at the sociological reasons behind their decisions, it's an even harder slap in the face - to AT (in my opinion), the character she's played for nearly ten years, and every female who's ever had, or ever will have, to deal with this kind of bureaucratic BS.

And here is where you lose me. THis is NOT about gender bias or female issues. This is the wrong forum for that. It should be a new thread.

And of COURSE we can speculate about how well-received Claudia Black would've been had she been Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell instead all we want. Heck, I would've been impressed with that move. Alas, that was not a viable option in the minds of the network, as Claudia Black, unfortunately, was born female. Her role on the show was to wear clothes that push up her breasts, and to spout lines about sex and how much she likes it. Her role on the show was to play the exact opposite of straightlaced Lt. Colonel Sam Carter (though that may prove to be quite interesting next year, if they do it right). Yes, her reproductive organs are on the inside. And as petty as it sounded nine years ago, it seems to ring quite true now. Pity.

*sigh* why can you not leave the gender stuff alone?
It is REALLY not relevant.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone. When did you say that? In the eight months that we've had this "debate," I don't think I've ever read that you say that. No, I won't wade through hundreds and hundreds of posts, but if you could show me where you said that (perhaps a page range?), I'd be more than willing to admit that I'm wrong there...

I've said it multiple times since last October. I know I said it in the initial thread.
But I also said it more recently in teh qualifications debate.

At the beginning of the Stargate Program? No. But after nine years of operation with nearly 30 teams on the docket, why oh WHY would it serve the SGC to hire on someone - to the flagship team, no less - who doesn't have on par command/gate travel experience with anyone (not ONE) else? How does that help anyone?

He has GREATER command experience.

Noob Leader: OK, let's do this...

Other Leaders: Yeah, we tried that five years ago, and it didn't work.

Noob Leader: How about this?

Other Leaders: Uh... no. Tried that EIGHT years ago. Guess again.

Noob Leader: This?

Other Leaders: Last year's escapades. Almost resulted in galactic annihilation.

Noob Leader: Oh, ffs.

Other Leaders: I thought you read the reports?

Noob Leader: It was great reading, but it really only helps in the exposition of our missions - you know, explaining the gist of what happened way back when, so the viewers aren't completely lost?

Other Leaders: Oh... Yeah, that's not helping here. Let's do this.

Noob Leader: Okie-dokie.

Meanwhile, back at the Ori...

When has this ever happened?

You're right. Unfortunately, try as I might, when I ask RCC and Co. WHY they brought in Ben Browder, they refuse to say, "It was a guy thing." But I know that if I keep trying, I think I can make 'em crack.

No, I don't have any evidence to support it. But do you have any evidence to discredit it? What are they going to say, "Yeah, as cool as the other three schmucks are, we just didn't know what to do with them this season. Especially that blonde one"?

I don't need to discredit it. you advanced it, you have to back it up. If you can't, then sorry, but that means it's solely your opinion and not a fact.

Let's break it down:

Seasons 1-8: SG-1's renewal status is predicated on whether or not RDA returns - specifically after they make the move to Sci Fi for their sixth season. He's the lead character, but his time on the show begins to wan. They promote him to General at the end of his time on the show as a way to keep him the lead character, which is great because Jack O'Neill was one of four important staples of the show.

Season 9: RDA retires, but SG-1 is renewed. Oh, but are they renewed with the remaining 75% of their original cast - you know, the ones who gained equal popularity with RDA? Oh, no. They're renewed with Ben Browder at the helm. And what role does he logically take, with his character not having ANY gate or field experience? He takes the LEAD role. Over AT and CJ, who've been credited for every, single episode since COTG, and over MS, whose absence created such a tizzy three years ago that Sci Fi was practically begging him to come back.

I don't know how much clearer it can get.

They hired a new lead. I don't see how this proves that they wanted a MAN to be the new lead because they are biased against women in general and AT in particular.

Replace her tech duties and SG-1's screwed. It makes no sense to make it solely one or the other, especially when the dynamics of The Big 3 were centered around them making group decisions based on their individual expertise and experience.

No, Jack made the decision. It DOES make sense to be solely one of the other.
Sam cannot both lead and research tech in teh field. She'd either have to delgate tech or lead. Since she is tech AND lead, who could she delegate to?
Put a new tech on SG-1 and then Sam can do her leadership job PROPERLY, like Jack did and Mitchell does.

It all goes towards that little comparison that we've been making between your line of thinking and mine. In my eyes, blindly accepting a new character who's not even established yet, over an existing character who's gotten the job done when given the chance, falls into the faulty reasoning category, and shows a bias towards the one constant about the new character: Ben Browder.

*sigh*
No, it means I don't think that the existing character, as is, should lead. I've made the case for that. However, this 'bias towards BB' that you accuse me of is simply your opinion yet again.
It's a little unfair to expect me to disprove your opinion.

[ReganX]

But after nine years of operation with nearly 30 teams on the docket, why oh WHY would it serve the SGC to hire on someone - to the flagship team, no less - who doesn't have on par command/gate travel experience with anyone (not ONE) else?

It doesn't.

There would would have been nearly thirty officers in command of SG teams at the beginning of Season Nine, plus more who are members of those teams, all with varying levels of experience with travel through the 'gate - Ferretti had been there since the movie and has commanded a team since early Season One.

I would consider one of them far better suited to lead SG-1 than somebody who had never even seen the stargate until the day that they were placed on the flagship team at their own request.

Like I said, my main problem with Carter leading is overloading. Replace her tech duties and I'm fine with her leading.

I don't see why Sam would need to be replaced for the technical side in order for her to be leader of the team. As the dancer of spaz pointed out, Sam, Daniel and Teal'c all bring their own strengths and areas of expertise to the team. Sam could lead the team without it taking away from her scientific side and without her dominating the show.

Should someone get a promotion simply because of their time within the program? Or based on their actions during their career in order to recieve that promotion?

I'm probably missing a few, but so far I count at least eleven times where Sam has played a vital part in saving Earth from possible destruction prior to Season Nine, both at the hands of the Goa'uld and other threats. This does not include the times where she has helped save another planet or their offworld allies.

It would be rather difficult to top that.

[warmbeachbrat]

You know, this can sometimes be a rather difficult thread to post in. I can't remember how many times I've signed in and read new posts in my subscribed threads, and then come to this one and had to wade through five or six pages. Any post, comment, discussion that I'd want to chime in on, was long in the past and the opportunity was lost. And it seems as if the same points (points I had already commented on and did not feel like reiterating) were hashed over again and again, while new questions or comments I had or others who don't post here as frequently had were skipped over or not responded to. Which is no big deal--not everyone is interested in the things everyone else is interested in, but it does make a difference in my participation level in the thread.

Now, the topic is who should lead SG1. Not necessarily who is most qualified or who is the best person or who has the most experience or who is better looking or whatever. Sure, based on gate experience and scientific knowhow, Sam would be best. Based on physical strength, life experience, knowledge of other worlds, and battle experience, Teal'c would be best. Based on knowledge and experience with other cultures, facility with languages and deciphering ancient technology, and gate experience, Daniel would be best. But is that what they (they being the SGC, the military, the politicians--those in leadership within the show's purview) want? It seems to me that they want to train someone to fill some very large shoes. Jack left and he isn't coming back. Sam left for several very good reasons, Teal'c left also for good reasons, and Daniel was ready for Atlantis. I think those in command realized that disbanding their flagship team might not have been the best idea, yet if it happened once, it could happen again. So possibly they're thinking of a contingency plan--train new people for that eventuality. I guess Mitchell has both the good and bad fortune to be that first new person.

I must confess that I do NOT see Mitchell as a loose cannon, continually making mistakes. I can think of two: Prototype (and I commented on this a while back, but didn't get an answer--how different is Prototype from Gemini?) and Off the Grid. I don't see either situation as irredeemibly bad. And I'm not keeping score, either. He's feeling his way and gaining experience. He's trying to fit himself in to a team that's been together for eight, going on nine years. At the risk of repeating myself, I think he and Teal'c have developed a little brother/big brother mentor relationship that is a joy to see. It seems to me that some of the perceived tension on the team is Cameron trying to hold his own amongst three very strong personalities. It would be easier to let each of his team members make the call in each of their specialties each and every time, rather than use their information (or discard it) to make his own call. It can't be easy for him--but he seems a determined type of guy.

And really, he DOES have character. He is determined and does not give up at the first sign of trouble. He's made mistakes in his past and is wary of making more. He's a decorated officer with the backing of Jack and General Landry. He has a sense of humor that he likes to use to reduce and relieve tension. He has a storehouse of knowledge from his parents and grandparents (well, grandmother at least) that he's not afraid to use. He's genuinely excited to be on SG-1 and it motivates him and the team. He has compassion and cares about his team members as well as others.

I see absolutely no problem with him being co-leader with Sam to learn about leading the SG-1 team. She certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with co-leadership and I think it gives him a bit more confidence.

Man! I've just spent an hour trying to compose this post, so the discussion has probably passed me by. Oh well.

[RealmOfX]

He has GREATER command experience.

On what do you base this statement? Could we have some details please.

[ancientaction]

hey, minigeek, i really like your sig

[RealmOfX]

Ok, so we have those that believe Cam is more qualified to lead.

I know this is a rather large thread and I might have missed a few posts but most of the ones that were for Cam to lead were not based on him having more qualifications. In fact when it comes to who is more qualified Cam comes up short.

Those who think Carter should lead due to her length with the program, and that she lead last year.

Nope, it's not because of the length of service with the progam, it's because of qualifications gained through long service, there is a difference.

Should someone get a promotion simply because of their time within the program?

No, certainly not.

Or based on their actions during their career in order to recieve that promotion?

That is what we have been arguing. Go look at Fred's very good post with a side by side comparison of the four people in this poll for starters.

[Lightsabre]

On what do you base this statement? Could we have some details please.

Cameron has been a Lt Col longer than Sam. Sam has only actaully led for a year and it's likely that Mitchell has led for more of his career than that.

[Lightsabre]

I know this is a rather large thread and I might have missed a few posts but most of the ones that were for Cam to lead were not based on him having more qualifications. In fact when it comes to who is more qualified Cam comes up short.

No, he comes up well in LEADERSHIP quals. It's in the gate qualification he comes up short.

Nope, it's not because of the length of service with the progam, it's because of qualifications gained through long service, there is a difference.

But all the knowledge and skills she's gained have been technical. I haven't seen a difference in her leadership.
From Spirts(S3) to New Order(S8) I've seen the same type of leadership from her.

That is what we have been arguing. Go look at Fred's very good post with a side by side comparison of the four people in this poll for starters.

I don't see how saving the world makes her a good leader.

[the dancer of spaz]

PArtly,I"m also drawing on my experiences in all the other 'leader' threads.

Oh. So in other words, you ARE saying that people are attacking you. Myself included.

Not really, most of them just can't be bothered to come here and take this crap. I love to debate and argue. I love to form a good strong position and defend it.
I HATE having to put up with the snide remarks and personal shots from people like scarimor. THAT Is why I'm nearly at the end of my fuse with the entire site.

Here's the thing. You call this farce of a debate "crap," yet you continue to join in whenever you get the chance. It's their personal decisions not to join, of course. However, can you really complain to US about other people not helping your side? You've posted quite well on your own for several months. It's not an issue anymore. We all know that, should this discussion come up, you'll be right there in the thick of things. Still, I'm not going to stop posting simply to even out the playing field, if I see something in your argument that doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, but you're just a bit too sensitive. Fight the majority and keep on trucking. I've been there. If you're looking to make your case known, you're gonna have to put up with "snide remarks" and what you consider "personal shots," and you're gonna have to give as much as you get. And I think you've done that well enough in the past.

I just don't think anyone else is seeing the attack as blatantly as you are, otherwise a moderator would've already shut this down.

I may be biased towards mitchell. I don't think I am, but it could be unconcious.
I am NOT biased towards BB cause I've seen like one ep of FS and I was about 12 when I did. I've never said a word about BB cause I don't really care.
I"m talking about SG-1 chars NOT actors an I never will.

I don't really admire BB. Or I didn't when I first took his side. I do think, after seeing him in SG that's he's pretty good, but I hadn't really seen him act before that.

Whatever your bias is, whether towards Cameron or against Carter, I'm simply conceding that you're not a hater. You've not displayed any evidence of being one of the categorical ranters we've seen before. I do, however, think that your ardent praise for Cameron prior to the start of Season Nine was a bit... premature.

How is this relevant? It simply adds more to my side. I've always thought Carter shouldn't lead UNLESS her tech duties were covered.

And I've always said that that's unnecessary, considering Teal'c is more than capable of taking care of business and Daniel can take care of himself now. There's no need for a fourth member when the three other team members are that cohesive, imo.

Because RDA was still the lead character in S8. Carter did not lead much, Jack did. This is why S8 arguments don't really work, she wasn't doing much leading.

You're right, she didn't. And, sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I think there are reasons behind that. They wanted to keep Jack/RDA on board and out in the open as much as they could last season. As a result, SG-1 moments on their own were minimal. Plus there were the budget issues that came into play, which was why we didn't have as many off-world episodes. All of these amounted to less leading for Carter, and more interaction between SG-1 and Jack. Does it suck? Yeah, looking back at how that affected the wasted potential, it sucks quite a bit. But I'm really glad they utilized RDA's schedule as well as they did.

The actors weren't demoted. None of them lost their billing or anything like that.

It all depends on your definition of "demotion." In my book, when three actors have been there pretty much from the beginning, and have maintained their "place" so to speak within the dynamic of the series for nine years, and a new person (or persons) comes in and takes that designated "place" from them, moving right up the totem pole to the very top, THAT is a demotion. Ben Browder did nothing, and as long as the actors are paid the same, I'm sure their issues with it are minimal... But it doesn't change the fact that a new actor was able to completely bypass the others for first-billing in one episode flat.

As to the character, well, in my opinion, she shouldn't have been lead till there was a new tech. There are many reasons for this which I've been over and over.

Well, you can have issues with that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they wrote her as leading the team as a Captain, a Major and a Lt. Colonel, and all of these times included her using her knowledge of science and her leadership skills to complete the mission. They've written her as being able to do it in canon. The character is capable of both. All of the complaining in the world isn't going to change that.

And here is where you lose me. THis is NOT about gender bias or female issues. This is the wrong forum for that. It should be a new thread.

This whole thread has been off topic for many pages. Please don't tell me that there should be a new thread for it. We've talked about who should be leading, who IS leading, how well they're leading, and why. My opinion on Cameron Mitchell's leadership falls under the why category. Why did he jump from wanting to learn from the best to wanting to lead the best so fast, and why has it been so ardently supported by TPTB? Because he's the male action hero.

*sigh* why can you not leave the gender stuff alone?
It is REALLY not relevant.

Look, just because you keep SAYING it's not relevant, doesn't mean it's not going to go away. You bring up hypotethicals like IF Claudia Black had played Cameron or IF Cameron had been played by a woman, but the fact remains that they did NOT replace Richard Dean Anderson's position with a woman. That, in and of itself, would've been redundant, as they already had one of those. They didn't even replace his "lead" position with one or both of the male actors they already had. They specifically looked for someone of "male lead" caliber, and hired him on, assuming of course that he would seamlessly fall into place as Jack Junior. They were hoping to preserve the series' status, by maintaining that "anchor" that had always been there for all of those years.

They evidently thought that if they silently wrote off Jack, disregarded the relationships between the three original characters, and put an inordinate amount of focus on their new characters, that everything would be fine. The show would continue to thrive. Well, it turns out their assumptions were wrong. The fandom and the show's ratings have proven that much.

He has GREATER command experience.

Oh, really? When and how was that established besides the handful of flashbacks in Avalon?

I don't need to discredit it. you advanced it, you have to back it up. If you can't, then sorry, but that means it's solely your opinion and not a fact.

I know. I'm using that old logic again. Sorry I don't have more that that. But doesn't it stand to reason that if TPTB were so desperate to find a "replacement" for Richard Dean Anderson (rather than sticking with what they had in AT, MS, CJ), that means that they only hired Ben Browder on because of his "male lead" personality, and nothing more? Especially when they already had Sam leading during Season Eight?

They hired a new lead. I don't see how this proves that they wanted a MAN to be the new lead because they are biased against women in general and AT in particular.

I have no doubt in my mind that they respect AT for her work. I have no doubt that they know they can rely on AT to be professional, no matter what role she plays. But in the eyes of the men and women in charge, the bottom line is the dollar, and the dollar comes from viewers. And if viewers are determined by WHO is leading, not how well they lead, the choices they make will be determined by accommodating the lowest common denominator, not doing what's right.

No, Jack made the decision. It DOES make sense to be solely one of the other.

In the field, when it was just Sam, Daniel and Teal'c offworld, Sam made the decision (like in Zero Hour, Icon and IGTBK), and only Sam. If Jack was needed, they contacted him and moved on accordingly, but before it ever came to that - and yes the moments we saw were few and far between - Sam was the one who called the shots.

Sam cannot both lead and research tech in teh field. She'd either have to delgate tech or lead. Since she is tech AND lead, who could she delegate to?

She can delegate to Teal'c and Daniel, the members of the team who've been working with her for nearly a decade of their lives. And, in the end, it doesn't have to be delegation if Daniel and Teal'c already know what to do. And they've proven time and time again that they know how to take care of business sans orders. The dynamic this season has shown that as well.

Put a new tech on SG-1 and then Sam can do her leadership job PROPERLY, like Jack did and Mitchell does.

We could only HOPE that Sam wouldn't lead the team as "well" as Mitchell does.

*sigh*
No, it means I don't think that the existing character, as is, should lead. I've made the case for that. However, this 'bias towards BB' that you accuse me of is simply your opinion yet again.
It's a little unfair to expect me to disprove your opinion.

Well, that's cool, because I don't expect you to disprove my opinion.

[Spell_Daemon]

Definitly Carter!!!

I hate that Cameron is leader. It is an invasion on the original SG-1's territory. I guess its to late now, if they don't get ride of Cameron, which I hope they don't because I like him... just not as leader.

[Lightsabre]

It doesn't.

There would would have been nearly thirty officers in command of SG teams at the beginning of Season Nine, plus more who are members of those teams, all with varying levels of experience with travel through the 'gate - Ferretti had been there since the movie and has commanded a team since early Season One.

I would consider one of them far better suited to lead SG-1 than somebody who had never even seen the stargate until the day that they were placed on the flagship team at their own request.

Why?
If you are a infantry leader for 20 years and then you are made a tank division commander , you should be able to apply your command skills equally to both. You might not have the indepth knowledge of tanks, but you can gain it.
Either way, operational knowledge or lack thereof does not make or break a leader.

I don't see why Sam would need to be replaced for the technical side in order for her to be leader of the team. As the dancer of spaz pointed out, Sam, Daniel and Teal'c all bring their own strengths and areas of expertise to the team. Sam could lead the team without it taking away from her scientific side and without her dominating the show.

Sam in command would not have to report to anyone. Hence it would be "I knew what to do and cause I'm leader, I just did it."
the technical exposition would no longer be needed and the show would be all about what Sam had done.

I'm probably missing a few, but so far I count at least eleven times where Sam has played a vital part in saving Earth from possible destruction prior to Season Nine, both at the hands of the Goa'uld and other threats. This does not include the times where she has helped save another planet or their offworld allies.

It would be rather difficult to top that.

How does this make her a good leader?

[ParadoxRealities]

::gasp:: I agree with lightsabre and warmbeachbrat. this thread is very hard to post in. people talk in circles, insult others (though not usually me, thank you), and tend not to listen to other's arguments. Its so heavy that sometimes I'm reluctant to read the new posts. That's why i decided to back off here.
And (this could simply be my own bias but) I haven't seen a new argument in here for a good few pages.
That said (and perhaps to prove my arrogance ), I'd like to ask 2 questions--And this really is purely asking. some people are saying that Mitchell should lead because he has nothing else to bring to the team, some others are saying that Carter shouldn't lead because we would lose her original angle on the show (tech). Does this mean that Jack had nothing to add to the team except leadership? Didn’t he make some tactical decisions in his head, but consult the others for information to make those decisions, and even talk it out. Isn't it possible then that TPTB could write eps where Sam (hypothetically, if they made her sole CO) discussed the tech/tactical side with the others, so we could hear her. Plus Sam doesn't lead exactly like Jack, she's more like a first-among-equals-I-make-the-final-call. **NOTE: there is nothing wrong with that.** So TPTB could add some eps in a different style, say a little less gun action and more discussion/OMG there’s a galaxy threatening fill-in-the-black. they have a potentially very interesting arc at the moment (Ori), which they could do just about anything with. IMO it would actually fill out the show more to have solid discussion about (again) the biggest threat we have ever faced.

[ReganX]

Why?
If you are a infantry leader for 20 years and then you are made a tank division commander , you should be able to apply your command skills equally to both. You might not have the indepth knowledge of tanks, but you can gain it.
Either way, operational knowledge or lack thereof does not make or break a leader.

The SGC is not what I would describe as an average military operation. The SG teams have to deal with situations and face threats that few people outside the program could anticipate.

Somebody with experience of stargate travel, interaction with people off-world, alien technology, the Goa'uld, etc, would be my choice for an SG team commander over somebody without.

Sam in command would not have to report to anyone. Hence it would be "I knew what to do and cause I'm leader, I just did it."
the technical exposition would no longer be needed and the show would be all about what Sam had done.

You don't think that Sam has enough respect for Daniel and Teal'c to answer any questions they might have about the technical side or to let them know what her plans would be?

I disagree about Sam dominating the show as leader. I think that the writers would be able to avoid this and to allow all three members of the team and their stories an equal amount of the attention.

How does this make her a good leader?

I think that it speaks highly for her intelligence, resourcefulness and ability to act under pressure and in difficult circumstances - all qualities that I would consider desirable in a leader.

[DEM]

warmbeachbrat, I'm going to try to answer you because you've got that vulnerable-looking kitten avatar that rouses my sympathy.

You asked a question about Prototype vs Gemini. Uh, let me say first of all that, despite the explanatory efforts of my betters (and the stellarosity of AT), I have very little patience for Gemini. Yeah, everybody mucked up in that episode, and yeah I can sorta see why, logically speaking, they had no choice. It's just that I feel that neither the writing nor the direction had the depth the story required, so it ended up being one big frustrating (for me) mess that served no purpose other than to get new & improved replicators into the galaxy so that
The Season Pseudo-Finale! could be An Extravaganza! With A Cast of Thousands! Feh.

Further aside (yet not), this is a longstanding problem with Stargate: Character-driven eps that lead nowhere. ugh.

Anyway, regardless: Yes, a duping did happen. However, regardless of how one feels about the Gemini dupes -- or even whether there was just one dupe -- it's pretty clear, IMO, that said dupe(s) did so based on at least some degree of consideration of: 1) other ongoing conditions and 2) the consequences of various choices.

I really do not believe the same can be said for Mitchell's 'light switch' moment in Prototype, and, frankly, I don't see any way I can be convinced otherwise. (Which is not to say it couldn't happen.) Why would one walk into an alien vault and flick switches that are unmarked or whose labels one cannot read -- just because "he did it!"? ROTC students I could possibly see doing that. Big Time 'SG-1 Leader' Heroes[tm]? No.

On the matter of learning from Carter. I remain doubtful that that is what TPTB are writing. Furthermore, even if that were what TPTB or Homeworld Security were attempting to do, it seems to me that it's customary to learn from a learner's position, not from a position of equal authority. IOW, Mitchell should learn as 2IC, not 'co-commander'.

How's that?