Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[TV] The Traitors - BBC







Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,254
Surrey
It’s a shame that everyone thinks Jaz in a nut job when actually he’s just smart.

#teamjaz
There's nothing smart about telling everyone privately what your suspicions and then being as quiet as a mouse at the round table. That's just suspicious.

That said, he is the only traitor who says the right things (in amongst the nonsense they are all guilty of saying)
 




GloryDays

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2011
1,623
Leyton, E10.
There's nothing smart about telling everyone privately what your suspicions and then being as quiet as a mouse at the round table. That's just suspicious.

That said, he is the only traitor who says the right things (in amongst the nonsense they are all guilty of saying)

He’s no Einstein but he’s very switched on. The private chats are 100% the way to go IMO if you want to traitor hunt but it relies on how much ppl trust you. He’s on the fence for a lot of ppl but I don’t think he can afford to tread water now so kinda has to be proactive.
 






Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,227
Goldstone
You must be a blinder to watch this programme with ! A pound shop ‘Sherlock Holmes’ 🤓

We watch it as a family and all share our thoughts. Do you watch in silence and offer no opinion?
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,227
Goldstone
I think they've made a mistake recruiting another traitor - it means that the traitors will have to turn on each other at some point - as the faithful now know there's more than one traitor left. The pair of them could have kept going eliminating all the faithful and sharing the pot.

They don't have to, they could share the pot between 3 if they want. As Harry said, get one banished (like Jaz or Zach) then murder, and suddenly it's 6 left with 3 being traitors and 3 faithful. They can then basically share it all if they want (3 votes at the banishment being pretty powerful).

I'm not sure the production team would want that, but then I'm not sure why they allowed to two to recruit a third anyway. 3 traitors have been caught, and there's still 3 left, making it really tough for the faithful to win.

Murdering last night instead had its benefit too. There'd now be 7 left, if they can then let Ross or Jaz get banished, then murder again it's then the 2 of them against 3 faithful, probably at the final round table - risky.

If I was a traitor I think I'd be happy to share the pot with 2 others, rather than likely get nothing.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,227
Goldstone
There's nothing smart about telling everyone privately what your suspicions and then being as quiet as a mouse at the round table. That's just suspicious.

I also think he's smart. He's worked out a couple correctly, but if you start gobbing off about that early doors, you just get murdered. He also wasn't silent about Paul at the round table. Firstly he said to camera that he thought Paul was a traitor, but that he was too powerful to take down at the time, and a couple of days later he brought his name up, but everyone else ignored him and he sat in disbelief that they were all so stupid. So he backed down, made a fake peace with Paul, and waited until more people were on his side.

Everyone seems to think the job of a faithful is to vote out the traitors - that might be the final goal, but early on there's just no point as you'll get yourself murdered and they'll just recruit more. Ideally you'd work out who the traitors are, make friends with them and tell them you trust them.
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
I don't remember so many recruitments in the first series, only Kieran. Was there an option to murder or recruit each time then?
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,227
Goldstone
I don't remember so many recruitments in the first series, only Kieran. Was there an option to murder or recruit each time then?

They generally get the chance to recruit when the number of traitors to drops to 2, but the production team will judge it depending on timing I imagine.
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,365
Uffern
They don't have to, they could share the pot between 3 if they want. As Harry said, get one banished (like Jaz or Zach) then murder, and suddenly it's 6 left with 3 being traitors and 3 faithful. They can then basically share it all if they want (3 votes at the banishment being pretty powerful).
Yeah, but when it gets down to four, the one remaining faithful will pick one of the traitors and if the two are on the ball, they'll pile on ensuring that traitor is expelled (you generally have an idea who a person is going to vote for before the slate). They could, of course, all vote for the remaining faithful but if you knew that voting one way would mean sharing the pot with one other person, rather than two, you'd be pretty inclined to do it.

And if Ross wants to avenge mum, he could actually suggest Harry to the remaining faithful, ensuring Harry's fate.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,227
Goldstone
Yeah, but when it gets down to four, the one remaining faithful will pick one of the traitors and if the two are on the ball, they'll pile on ensuring that traitor is expelled (you generally have an idea who a person is going to vote for before the slate).

Sure, if 2 of the traitors are united against the 3rd. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to recruit.


And if Ross wants to avenge mum, he could actually suggest Harry to the remaining faithful, ensuring Harry's fate.
Ross should be smart enough to know that's not what his mum would want - she wants him to bring home the bacon.
 


Wozza

Shite Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
23,684
Online
The mum/son thing is a clearly an advantage. They should have been put at risk of being exposed at some point.
 


dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,232
Henfield
The mum/son thing is a clearly an advantage. They should have been put at risk of being exposed at some point.
Yes, from a programme maker’s perspective it couldn’t have worked out better for them, but I agree that it is an advantage that seems unfair.
 




Iggle Piggle

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2010
5,386
I've been watching bits and pieces but let's be honest it's a total guess up if you are in the mix. People can go from one team to the other, traitors stitch traitors up and everyone votes for a bellend. All I'd say is that Harry has got over confident and will undoubtedly get found out.

I'm team anyone but the parliamentary knobhead.
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
The mum/son thing is a clearly an advantage. They should have been put at risk of being exposed at some point.
There was a partner relationship in the first series, so it was up to the contestants to see if there is any kind of relationship this series. I think the parent sibling connection is a difficult one especially when they have different accents, but Diane was questioned about being Paul's Mum, which was funny because it's obvious she dyes her hair red.
 


Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,365
Uffern
Sure, if 2 of the traitors are united against the 3rd. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to recruit.

Ross should be smart enough to know that's not what his mum would want - she wants him to bring home the bacon.
But if there are only two traitors, they can't do that. If they try to banish each other, they'll both lose out - which is exactly what happened in the first series. Two traitors can control the ending because they can pick off the faithful. They could do with three traitors, that's true, but it will be more tempting to get rid of one.

And Ross can bring home the bacon by ganging up with Andrew and eliminating Harry. They then come down to three at the end and the two remaining traitors can eliminate the last remaining faithful and share the prize.
 




Wozza

Shite Supporter
Jul 6, 2003
23,684
Online
There was a partner relationship in the first series, so it was up to the contestants to see if there is any kind of relationship this series. I think the parent sibling connection is a difficult one especially when they have different accents, but Diane was questioned about being Paul's Mum, which was funny because it's obvious she dyes her hair red.
None of this changes the fact that it's an advantage.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,227
Goldstone
But if there are only two traitors, they can't do that. If they try to banish each other, they'll both lose out

So? If there are only 2 traitors, they don't try and banish each other, they try and persuade one of the faithfuls to go for the other. The problem in S1 was that the two faithfuls and Wilf were close to each other, and wouldn't have voted for each other instead of Kieron. Wilf should have kept cool and not stabbed Kieron in the back, and the 2 faithful would have got Kieron out, and Kieron wouldn't have felt the need to out Wilf.



which is exactly what happened in the first series. Two traitors can control the ending because they can pick off the faithful. They could do with three traitors, that's true, but it will be more tempting to get rid of one.

Either could happen. But having 3 gives them a better chance of getting to the end anyway. If it's 2 traitors against 3 faithful, there's every chance the faithful will take out a traitor.

And Ross can bring home the bacon by ganging up with Andrew and eliminating Harry. They then come down to three at the end and the two remaining traitors can eliminate the last remaining faithful and share the prize.
Indeed anything can happen.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here