Putting a "which one is better" poll in a forum dedicated to older Star Trek films is like going to a baseball game in AT&T Park in San Francisco and asking the crowd if the Giants or the Dodgers are best.
It's just not a comparable problem to "Starfleet suddenly promotes cadets on academic probation to commanding flagships." A fix can be found there, too; it's just mostly, when it comes right down to it -- this problem has been extensively chewed over and many defenses attempted in other threads -- along the lines of "forget about the writing and concentrate on the action." Since a fairly major in-universe detail like that (and many other plot logic problems in the Abrams films) just doesn't have a simple, plausible off-screen fix like the supposed Chekov problem.
I've never once said "forget about the writing and concentrate on the action." But movies often bend logic to tell the story they want to tell. Too hold Star Trek Into Darkness
to a standard that The Wrath of Khan
has never been held to is hypocritical at best.
The Wrath of Khan
needs Spock to die heroically so they ignore the fact that they have dozens of engineers who have access to radiation gear in order for Spock to go down and save the ship. It seems they have more command grade personnel (Kirk, Spock, Sulu) than competent engineers. They need Kirk to defeat Khan so they ignore the fact that Khan wanted to kill Kirk ten seconds after beaming up the Genesis device so they switch what his endgame is mid-stream (then switch it back). Then there's the fact that the Enterprise can track Reliant on the other side of the Regula planetoid, yet Reliant doesn't seem to know where the Enterprise is at when they come around expecting Enterprise to be at Regula I.
There aren't many movies that could stand up to the scrutiny that Star Trek Into Darkness
has been put through. The movie is new and it is different from what some want from Star Trek so that makes it a convenient punching bag.