• ā„¹ļø Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Traitors (WARNING: Potential spoilers!)

I reiterate what I said beforeā€¦ I think Jessie is one of the cleverest players in there.

She keeps saying Stephen despite people ignoring her, and is using actual concrete, correct logic to get to her conclusions.

I think sheā€™s a prime target for murder for this reason, though, as no one will suspect her and sheā€™s (correctly) gunning for Stephen.
 
Matt N said:
She keeps saying Stephen despite people ignoring her, and is using actual concrete, correct logic to get to her conclusions.
Click to expand...
"They must've put one of themselves in the cages" isn't concrete at all, it's a suspicion, and repeating the same thin argument over and over isn't a compelling way to get a mob together. It happens that she's correct, but that does not make her a good player at all.

Outing supposed privileged information immediately after the only person who could corroborate it was banished is way more of a tell. As Harriet said, that behaviour makes no sense at all for a good.

Voting out Harriet for following that lead, to check her allegiance, was fair - but then her main suspicion didn't come up even once in today's edit.

Absolute goons, the lot of them.
 
jon81uk said:
Oh but the drama of people going nuclear against Rachel and then self-eliminating is fantastic. For two people to have done a similar thing is making this good TV.
Click to expand...
From a gameplay perspective both moves were ballsy, the execution was a little overdramatic too, and the town's initial reaction to both was rational. The irrational bit is the complete lack of any follow through beyond that (except Harriet's).

They obviously must weed anyone out now who has ever played one of these games IRL... which is a shame because it really dumbs the programme down to essentially being players being offended at anyone who actually tries to use the levers available to them; while others get completely fixated on suspicions which they never flesh out any further.

The whole 'taking a shield and not telling anyone makes me suspect you're a traitor' stuff is such a logical fallacy it made me want to slam my head somewhere.

They all deserve to lose. I hope they all do.
 
I hope in the coming episodes that the Faithful see that two of the last banishments were people who went gunning for Rachel in a big way, one of whom ended up being faithful.

Surely they must eventually see that the common denominator is Rachel?

I also thought that the whole thing around shields was not an indicator of traitorousness (is that a word?). Surely James being so desperate for a shield that he stole one secretly makes him the opposite of a traitor, as a traitor would surely want everybody to know that they had a shield to cement themselves as a faithful, no?
 
Last edited:
jon81uk said:
Want a shield too much - traitor. Don't want a shield at all - traitor.
Click to expand...
Thatā€™s what makes the game so difficult, I feel. In so many ways, itā€™s a ā€œdamned if you do, damned if you donā€™tā€ game.

If youā€™re too loud and outspoken with theories, youā€™re a traitor trying to deflect heat off yourself. If youā€™re too quiet, youā€™re a traitor trying not to attract attention to yourself. If you vote with the crowd, youā€™re a traitor trying to fit in. If you donā€™t vote with the crowd, youā€™re a traitor trying to protect your fellow traitors.

Gaining minimal suspicion is a really tough balancing act! Youā€™ve got to be quiet but not too quiet, scared but not too scared, passionate but not too passionateā€¦
 
Tbh it just shows us that humans on the whole are fairly dim and not infallible. People may think they'd do better, but I reckon most of us arm chair traitor hunters would also suffer if they were actually in the castle.

I know I wouldn't last beyond the first round table - can hardly bear to watch them on tv.
 
Alix said:
Tbh it just shows us that humans on the whole are fairly dim and not infallible. People may think they'd do better, but I reckon most of us arm chair traitor hunters would also suffer if they were actually in the castle.

I know I wouldn't last beyond the first round table - can hardly bear to watch them on tv.
Click to expand...
If you're any good you get banished or murdered quite quickly - normally banished.

The best way to "win" is to say and do very little. It's rather a flaw in the game.

It does make compelling telly, but I wish they would do it with a more intelligent cast than the one they have. I think it was of benefit to the celebrity series.
 
You can't seriously be claiming the celebrities were smarter? Until the end the traitors ran circles around them. The Jo's were the only ones making actual logical observations.

As Alix said I think what this really highlights is that people aren't as smart as we think we are when put in this kind of situation.
Plus of course a bit of TV misdirection to make it seem more obvious to the viewers. It's a very well edited show, which shouldn't be underestimated.
 
Last edited:
WillPS said:
It does make compelling telly, but I wish they would do it with a more intelligent cast than the one they have. I think it was of benefit to the celebrity series.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the celebrities that somehow managed to let Alan Carr win as a traitor!

People you donā€™t know can always look stupid on shows like this. Itā€™s the same on The Apprentice. We all sit at home saying weā€™d do a far better job. But would we? Probably not in most cases.

Iā€™m loving this series, Rachel and Stephen are playing a blinder!
 
Tim said:
You can't seriously be claiming the celebrities were smarter? Until the end the traitors ran circles around them.
Click to expand...
Rob said:
Ah yes, the celebrities that somehow managed to let Alan Carr win as a traitor!
Click to expand...
Remind me, what was the logical deduction town could potentially follow through gameplay that would have pointed the finger to Carr as bad?

You're both conflating things being obvious (in the edit) with how to actually play the game on paper. As viewers, we only get to see the 'tells' which the editors deign fit to leave in, which means our ability to truly make a judgment on those aspects as though we were part of the town is more or less impossible. What we can do far more reliably is see the order events play out in, and crucially the order and manner in which players good and bad make their plays.

The timing of Rachel's outing of privileged, uncorroborable information was objectively dodgy. It was a needless 'you should trust me because...' play which utterly lacked any verifiable substance and didn't help town a jot, and if she was not malign then it would have had her murdered very quickly.

It should have been a terrible play but because the town is playing the worst of any of the groups I've seen (except Australia Season 2!) it has somehow seemingly cemented her. And this is before you go in to the classic Traitor on Traitor tell, or the fact Harriet semi-adequately laid out the whole case and got "checked" for it.

I am not at all confident that I would last long on The Traitors, I'm too gobby by nature, so please don't mistake what I'm saying for believing I would be smashing it - but I am absolutely saying this should be obvious low hanging fruit fodder to anyone capable of critical thinking.
 
I think Alan Carrā€™s biggest tell was laughing through the phrase ā€œI am a faithfulā€. To be fair, I can imagine Carrā€™s general personality might have absolved him of being accused by that one, but Iā€™m not sure any civilian Traitors contestant would be let off that easily!

Itā€™s also worth remembering that the celebrities took ages to actually evict a Traitor and let two of the three go to the final, whereas the people in this series at least evicted two by the end of the second week. Granted, I think Hugo and Fiona did it to themselves to an extent, but even still, they did get two Traitors by the halfway point.
 
Didnā€™t Carr also forget he had a shield at one point, making himself seem incredibly dodgy?

I think youā€™ve got to look through the lens of the contestants during the Fiona and Harriett things.

Fiona changed from her affable personality to a bit of a rogue. Immediately got the boot and was a a traitor.

Harriet revealed herself to be an expert. Threw out one correct theory about Rachel but kept calling her personal hunches evidence, then threw out 3 incorrect names and invited people to vote her out, to be revealed as a faithful.

Without the hindsight of 360 vision, thatā€™s confusing as hell.
 
I think Harriet's approach was her entire downfall. Had she approached the Rachel case in the same way she'd approached the Hugo case, she'd likely have succeeded.

Had she just let Rachel stew for the day, and then laid out her suspicions at the round table, she'd have likely taken people with her as the 'theory of the day', due to her general good-faith standing with the other faithfuls

But instead she went for full nuclear meltdown, randomly shouting at the other contestants, completely undermining her standing in the group, and the presented her hunches as evidence, allowing Rachel to quite rightly call out her complete lack of actual evidence. And indeed basically told Rachel her entire gameplan at breakfast, allowing her time to compose herself and avoid any slip ups during the day.

One of my friends said that it was almost like Harriet had a deadline she needed to meet with her publisher, so knew she had to be out of the castle after the first week of filming.
 
Not arguing Harriet's final day go-for-broke play was anything other than weird.

What I'm arguing is the town are doing a bad job making deductions about what is happening. They shouldn't need to rely on Harriet's word to decide that Rachel's play makes far more sense to be a bad than good; it should be blindingly obvious.

Further to that Rachel's weird 'I have a big reveal too' at the round table should totally have been considered deflection IMHO.

BSwiss said:
Didnā€™t Carr also forget he had a shield at one point, making himself seem incredibly dodgy?
Click to expand...
Dodgy behaviour, a tell which potentially falls in to the former category of 'totally subject to whatever we see in the edit', but not a misplay.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top