And this is why i initially didn't bother going into detail on why you have no idea how leadership and command works.
Lieutenants fresh out of training make decisions based on reports they get from those sergeants who've been in for a while and have way more experience than they do. They get their direction based on input and guidance they receive from the tactical level of command. I guarantee you that if a lieutenant disregarded the advice from his NCOs and decided on courses of action that blatantly ignored the current situation and level of intel, he would be fired from his position.
Del Rio did not have a better tactical awareness of the situation on REQUIEM than John. That doesn't even make sense. So when he ignored his assessment of the situation on the planet, he failed in his duty to lead.
And this is why I initially didn't bother going into detail on why you have no idea how leadership and command works.
Lieutenants fresh out of training CAN make decisions based on reports they get from sergeanst who've been in for a while and have way more experience than they do, and they often do make decisions based on that. But they DO NOT HAVE TO. You guarantee nothing because you don't even understand the situation in Halo 4, let alone the situation in a real scenario.
Del Rio had better tactical awareness because during the battle he would have been receiving damage reports, weapons statistics, soldier casualties, etc. and over the course of the 5 years he'd commanded the Infinity he'd have grown accustomed to its abilities. Things Chief knows nothing about. Being on the ground doesn't mean you have the most information possible or the best grasp on the situation, so stop stupidly thinking that. It makes perfect sense. Chief knew they hurt the Didact. He didn't know how much the Didact hurt them. His decision was based on one factor, while Del Rio's was based on both. Del Rio's actions weren't "blatantly ignoring intel", they were made with ALL the intel available rather than just half of it like Chief's actions would have been.
Regardless, the point is null. Your argument is for what would happen to an officer with less experience. Therefore, you need to prove that Del Rio has less experience and time with the UNSC than Chief does, otherwise your argument holds no water.
That said, your argument isn't based on what actually happened or what's real, and you aren't even trying to see the Captain's side of it. You're instead basing your argument off of "Chief is the main character and I like him, therefore he is complete right all the time always." According to in-universe lore, not stupid bias, Del Rio followed protocol set by the UNSC for first contact situations. They even say as much in the game.
Um, no. YOU brought up lieutenants as an example. I just responded to your scenario. And in regard to that, i know the standard officers are held to and how difficult it is for them to promote. So yeah, i can guarantee that if they're not doing their job they can quickly be fired. And they have to make decisions based on all current known data. Sure you can make decisions that don't fully respect the urgency being communicated, but you don't just disregard it.
And it doesn't matter who has more experience. The fact of the matter is that all the experience a person has should not be discounted because the listener outranks the speaker. More important anyway would be the type of experience than total. John has way more first-hand tactical level experience than Del Rio, and obviously more than anyone else briefing sitreps to Del Rio.
Current protocol isn't always applicable in new scenarios either. Just because "we always did it that way" doesn't mean it's best to always follow that course of action. Being able to lead involves being able to fully understand everything going on and being flexible when following guidelines. The Didact was a never before encountered threat, so that alone leads to the likelihood that the threat will have to be dealt with in more spontaneous ways.
Good leadership is not ignoring your people. If an E-1 identifies a problem, supervision doesn't ignore it. If he offers a possible solution, at the very least you tweak it as it applies to the big picture before implementing it. You don't just go "no, you're wrong because i'm a higher rank, and your input means nothing." No good leader would do that. In fact, the only time you would shut someone down like that is "we've already identified that, and that solution doesn't work because..." or "we are currently implementing a different solution because..." If experience shows that the solution is inadequate, or the problem is insignificant, then that's when leadership snuffs subordinates. But since the Didact was a brand new encounter, experience cannot dictate that.
And of course when a leader considers everything, he may not give the situation a level of priority or response that seems adequate to his people, and they may not be satisfied with his decision. But that's not ignoring the issue.
And finally, Del Rio was throwing hissy fits in every cutscene he participated in. He was perpetually mad.