Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[Uber]

I think Shards is simply trying to say there is a section of fandom out there who would only ever accept sam in charge. No matter who or what else was put in charge or what explantion was offered, they would still find fault with him/her.

As to the Dixon debate, can all of you 'anti-mitchell leading' people honestly tell me that if it was Dixon hitting the lightswitch in prototype or making the run in stronghold, you'd be ok with it?

Dixon would have known better to leave the switch alone and would have held his position when ordered to do so.

[Lightsabre]

Dixon would have known better to leave the switch alone and would have held his position when ordered to do so.

How can you say that? If we accept that hittign the button was a plot device,then it only makes sense that Dixon, if he was there instead of Mitchell, would have hit it.
LIkewise, in Stronghold, he would have made the run.
I asked if it was Dixon instead of Mitchell, would you accept the actions, I said nothing about the actions changing.
My point was, replace Mitchell with Dixon in all the S9 scripts and would you really accept him?
Methinks not.

[stargate barbie]

I think Shards is simply trying to say there is a section of fandom out there who would only ever accept sam in charge. No matter who or what else was put in charge or what explantion was offered, they would still find fault with him/her.

As to the Dixon debate, can all of you 'anti-mitchell leading' people honestly tell me that if it was Dixon hitting the lightswitch in prototype or making the run in stronghold, you'd be ok with it?

i think the point is, that dixon most likely would have known not to do that. again though, this is speculation, and we'll never know.

[Lightsabre]

you, in an unfortunate choice of words, have just proven why this debate is futile . . . .

just saw your ooops and edited post, however, I still stand by this statement with regard to those that do feel this way.

Interesting post bink.
The very same argument has been and could be again, made for people on your side.
Neither one has a monopoly on fanaticism.

[Dani347]

And for that matter, its not only "Sam fans" who have the Sam vote here. There are people whose favourite character is not Sam voting for Sam. And I'm sure there are people who are "Sam fans", who gave their vote to Mitchell, or possibly Daniel or Teal'c. Or wouldn't vote because their preferred leader is not on the list.

I'd bet that there are some Sam fans as well as some Mitchell fans who could make an argument for why neither of them should be leaders. Being a fan of a character does not mean that you automatically always take their part or can't think someone else is better for the job. Some fans might, but again, no fan group is a monolith.

[Lightsabre]

i think the point is, that dixon most likely would have known not to do that. again though, this is speculation, and we'll never know.

That wasn't what was advanced. Dixon was advanced as superior to Mitchell for his gate experience. However, the scripts stand as written.

[stargate barbie]

How can you say that? If we accept that hittign the button was a plot device,then it only makes sense that Dixon, if he was there instead of Mitchell, would have hit it.
LIkewise, in Stronghold, he would have made the run.
I asked if it was Dixon instead of Mitchell, would you accept the actions, I said nothing about the actions changing.
My point was, replace Mitchell with Dixon in all the S9 scripts and would you really accept him?
Methinks not.

of course not. but the fact is they are different characters. had they used dixon instead of mithcell, its most likely that these storylines and scripts never would have been exactly the same. they would have either had him do the same things mitchell has done, and we would be having a similar argument, i imagine. or they would have needed to obtain their destination in the story through another plot device, unknown to us.

mitchell and dixon are different characters. which is why i'm saying i would have accepted him a little easier. had they developed his character as inconsistantly and with the same faults and attitudes as they have with cam, then i'm sure i would most likely not be satisfied with the direction of the show, with his character, or with the fact that he was leading the team instead of someone whom i would percieve to be a better, and hence more deserving leader.

and i doubt that dixon would have done the same thing in stronghold, but we have no way of knowing that.

[Lightsabre]

And I really would appreciate it if my opinion wasn't generalised, or stated as being wrong or dream-like, in a situation that really is down to individual interpretation and speculation. Were we arguing facts it would be different. Coming right out and saying that the opinions of a group of people as a whole are incorrect in such a manner as was stated is extremely disrespectful.

You mean like telling someone 'your wrong' or claiming their argument is 'absurd' or their reasoning is 'circular' or 'ridiculous'?
That's offensive now? Cuase a few posts back, people were all hot to tell me it's all part of debating and you have to expect that sort of thing. THey have the right to say it and getting upset is making it all about you.
Hmm, how times can change.

Shards, tho he might have worded his post harshly, was simply observing that certain groups will NOT change their minds.
Now, did he mean all of them? no, probably not. He probably has a core group of names that he cannot list because of Gateword rules.
He needed a way to group those names and the most convienient and appropriate group was SAm fans.
IF you do NOT fit that definition, then he was obviously not talking about you.
However, we've seen on this site both mindless attacks and put downs for Mitchell and some truly marvelous fanwanking on why Sam's mistakes aren't REALLY mistakes or why they don't stop her leading, tho Mitchell shouldn't.
THAT Is the sort of argument Shards was talking about.

And for that matter, its not only "Sam fans" who have the Sam vote here. There are people whose favourite character is not Sam voting for Sam. And I'm sure there are people who are "Sam fans", who gave their vote to Mitchell, or possibly Daniel or Teal'c. Or wouldn't vote because their preferred leader is not on the list.

How do you know this? Do you have some stats or is it speculation?

[binkpmmc]

snip, snip, And for that matter, its not only "Sam fans" who have the Sam vote here. There are people whose favourite character is not Sam voting for Sam. And I'm sure there are people who are "Sam fans", who gave their vote to Mitchell, or possibly Daniel or Teal'c. Or wouldn't vote because their preferred leader is not on the list.

great post overall SB. I snipped it for space and time and to focus on your last point. There are indeed other forums, in particular a few where the favorite character is almost the polar opposite of Carter, where there are plenty of fan (and that would be the "general fan") complaints and criticisms about mitchell and his immature behaviour, his lack of experience, his unporfessional behaviour and his bad judgement.

[stargate barbie]

anyway, back to the topic at hand. dixon isn't on the list, so my choice remains. IMO sam should lead sg-1 as things are in season 9.

[Lightsabre]

of course not. but the fact is they are different characters. had they used dixon instead of mithcell, its most likely that these storylines and scripts never would have been exactly the same. they would have either had him do the same things mitchell has done, and we would be having a similar argument, i imagine. or they would have needed to obtain their destination in the story through another plot device, unknown to us.

So it seems that Mitchell's lack of gate experience is meaningless.
It would appear the reasons for Mitchell not to lead are:
A)He's not Sam
b)He's done things some consider stupid.
IF you would accept Dixon in command if he took the same actions, then you are essentially saying you don't count gate experience as something needed for command.

mitchell and dixon are different characters. which is why i'm saying i would have accepted him a little easier. had they developed his character as inconsistantly and with the same faults and attitudes as they have with cam, then i'm sure i would most likely not be satisfied with the direction of the show, with his character, or with the fact that he was leading the team instead of someone whom i would percieve to be a better, and hence more deserving leader.

Yes, they are different characters, I don't see how this is relevant?
I mean, there was little to no character development of Dixon, he could very easily have taken over and been essentially Mitchell.

and i doubt that dixon would have done the same thing in stronghold, but we have no way of knowing that.

We can doubt all we want, but we can only extrapolate.

[Lightsabre]

great post overall SB. I snipped it for space and time and to focus on your last point. There are indeed other forums, in particular a few where the favorite character is almost the polar opposite of Carter, where there are plenty of fan (and that would be the "general fan") complaints and criticisms about mitchell and his immature behaviour, his lack of experience, his unporfessional behaviour and his bad judgement.

And there are many where there are complaints of Carter, how she's too perfect, how she's a token woman, things like that.
Does this make them true? or right?
Note:I shouldn't have to write this, but to stave off the 3 page flame war, none of the above views are mine.

[binkpmmc]

If Dixon, a person with SGC experience, was brought on as leader, or co-leader of SG1, and then written as badly and inconsistently as mitchell sure as heck I would have the same exact, if not bigger, problems with Dixon than I do with mitchell. That would clearly be TPTB writing Dixon going backwards from an experienced SG person to a dolt.

The point in comparing Dixon to mitchell is that Dixon is someone that may have been accepted more readily than mitchell has BECAUSE he has experience, he is professional, he has SGC and off-word experience and one would assume that with a character like that TPTB would continue to write him like that not stoop to the shallow depths they have with mitchell - if they did to Dixon what they have done with mitchell the debate would be raging exactly as it is now since the character would be the same character as mitchell only with a different name.

The point is that a leader or co-leader of a full colonel rank, with SGC and off-world experience who knows how to lead and behave and is a team player would likely have been accepted more readliy than the dreck we have been handed -- it is futile to ask if Dixon, or whoever that EXPERIENCED character would have been, had made the same mistakes as mitchell would you feel the same way because that would defeat the whole purpose of a Dixon-type character because he wouldn't be Dixon he would be mitchell with a different name.

[stargate barbie]

You mean like telling someone 'your wrong' or claiming their argument is 'absurd' or their reasoning is 'circular' or 'ridiculous'?
That's offensive now? Cuase a few posts back, people were all hot to tell me it's all part of debating and you have to expect that sort of thing. THey have the right to say it and getting upset is making it all about you.
Hmm, how times can change.

Shards, tho he might have worded his post harshly, was simply observing that certain groups will NOT change their minds.
Now, did he mean all of them? no, probably not. He probably has a core group of names that he cannot list because of Gateword rules.
He needed a way to group those names and the most convienient and appropriate group was SAm fans.
IF you do NOT fit that definition, then he was obviously not talking about you.
However, we've seen on this site both mindless attacks and put downs for Mitchell and some truly marvelous fanwanking on why Sam's mistakes aren't REALLY mistakes or why they don't stop her leading, tho Mitchell shouldn't.
THAT Is the sort of argument Shards was talking about.

How do you know this? Do you have some stats or is it speculation?

ok, first of all shards apologised for his choice of phrasing. and second, was i among that group that you just mentioned? if i were, than your critisism of me here might hold water. i have not generalised a group of fans harshly, i have not attacked anyone here that i'm aware of. i will say this. anyone who resorts to such tactics is doing themselves no favours in their side of the debate. at least not with me. i respect that shards made a follow up post saying what he said.

my point here is that it is unreasonable to blatantly generalise a group of people, and then state that their opinion is dreaming or in some way dishonest. i would consider myself a sam fan. so how would i know that he was not speaking of me, when i was among those who stated that dixon would have been more acceptable? i didn't appreciate the implication. now i don't want to go back into this lapse in the debate, as i believe it has now been resolved and we have moved on. and i think shards can speak to what his point was himself, whether that was it or not.


and yes, we have seen "mindless attacks and putdowns", although i'm not sure i'd phrase it exactly like that myself, from both sides of the argument (sam v. cam). its not just attacks on mitchell, nor is it just attacks on sam.


i'm basing my statement of who's voting for who, and why they aren't neccessarily voting for their favourite character, on statements that i have read in this thread and in others.

[Lightsabre]

If Dixon, a person with SGC experience, was brought on as leader, or co-leader of SG1, and then written as badly and inconsistently as mitchell sure as heck I would have the same exact, if not bigger, problems with Dixon than I do with mitchell. That would clearly be TPTB writing Dixon going backwards from an experienced SG person to a dolt.

Thus proving my point that it doesn't matter who took the actions, it's the actions people have a problem with, not the character.
It also proves that SGC experience isn't needed.
I also don't see how it would be Dixon going backwards? Can you elaborate on that?

The point in comparing Dixon to mitchell is that Dixon is someone that may have been accepted more readily than mitchell has BECAUSE he has experience, he is professional, he has SGC and off-word experience and one would assume that with a character like that TPTB would continue to write him like that not stoop to the shallow depths they have with mitchell - if they did to Dixon what they have done with mitchell the debate would be raging exactly as it is now since the character would be the same character as mitchell only with a different name.

Yes, but you lot advanced Dixon on the basis of his experience. However, if he'd done the same as Mitchell, you'd STILL have a problme, meaning that said problem is with the actions, not the character.

The point is that a leader or co-leader of a full colonel rank, with SGC and off-world experience who knows how to lead and behave and is a team player would likely have been accepted more readliy than the dreck we have been handed

Hmm, Mitchell has all but the off world exp. Can someone PLEASE tell me why this is so important??

-- it is futile to ask if Dixon, or whoever that EXPERIENCED character would have been, had made the same mistakes as mitchell would you feel the same way because that would defeat the whole purpose of a Dixon-type character because he wouldn't be Dixon he would be mitchell with a different name.

I say again, there was little to no character development of Dixon. He could easily have been Mitchell because if he had, there wouldn't BE a Mitchell.