The flaw in the traitors

There are so many flaws in The Traitors.

-No contestants ever watch previous series and learn from them.

• All the Faithfuls prioritise "feelings" about people particularly "gut feelings" rather than any other glaring objective practical evidence
• None of the faithful ever believe the Traitors might work against each other, despite common sense dictating this might be the case, and previous series evidence that this often happens
• The Faithfuls all seek evidence of a traitorous/nasty nature to identify the Traitors despite the fact all they've done is receive a tap on the shoulder. No inherent evil or personality disorder required!
• They all fail to recognise that keeping quiet and flying below the radar can also be a tactic of a Traitor, even though this is a really obvious course of action. They seek a devil they can "see" instead.

I could go on! I watch this show because I think it's a great case study in how poorly our feelings and opinions serve us, as human beings. And how devoted we are as humans to putting feelings (which really mean nothing and are demonstrably unreliable) over actual practical objective evidence in social situations. It makes you wonder how we ever survived to this point in time at all, given that our collective judgement is so weak when it comes to each other.

ive said this since the last season and this season I am even louder about expressing how ridiculous it is! (even though I love the show) and they dont film it multiple times because I googled it and a traitor 'legend' debunked it by saying a traitor came in last once.. ONCE! in season 1 .. its such a flaw in the plot x

@fanaticalfairy
Yeah, there is no point in eliminating traitors in the current format as production keeps making sure there's at least two of them though recruitment, etc. while also saying the aim of the game is to get rid of traitors so the faithful can share the money at the end.
I think it will still be good tv if it's only faithfuls in the final, simply because the contestants will not know for sure. Production can always make up a reason as to why there was no murder (as they previously have done).

If it starts with more traitors, no recruitments, than it will be more exciting as the chance of finding traitors will be bigger, the clues on a certain person will stack up (as they would've been a traitor from the start).
Trying to pick two out of that many is near impossible especially as all they have to go by is a gut feeling.

The show can really do with a lot of rethinking and improvement to turn it into a real murder mystery. Everything is just left to luck and randomness as it is, at the moment, isn't it.

On your second point, over the weekend I've caught up with the "uncloaked" programme and it's been quite telling that quite a few of the murdered/banished had suspected that there was 4 traitors. This is the first time I've watched it, so I have yet to catch up on earlier series (though will once this one is over). Is it always 3 traitors from the start? Have various other series/countries changed it up?

I do agree though that the traitors haven't had the opportunity to sabotage any tasks (yet). The only thing people have to go on is suspicion and reading each other's attitudes and body language. Hence why Kas went and made a point of using the most ridiculous accusation levelled against him as his parting shot.

DH is obsessed by what we can see of the food, and keeps saying 'Those croissants look like shoe leather' and musing on where the nearest fresh croissant is available to a catering crew in a castle somewhere vaguely near Inverness.

I did imagine they had a more substantial breakfast first thing in the hotel, as they're clearly not hungry for the on set one and are just drinking juice and fiddling with the odd croissant. And obviously the whole thing would be rather less dramatic if everyone was horsing into their sausages and eggs and ignoring the door. 😀

I know lunch is an opportunity for people to chat and plot in small groups but I couldn't handle eating off my lap in an armchair while theorising about strategies and tells.

I would look for who always seemed most tired in the morning from having to go back and film the traitors meeting.
And also is the letter always left in the same chair?

On your second point, over the weekend I've caught up with the "uncloaked" programme and it's been quite telling that quite a few of the murdered/banished had suspected that there was 4 traitors. This is the first time I've watched it, so I have yet to catch up on earlier series (though will once this one is over). Is it always 3 traitors from the start? Have various other series/countries changed it up?

I do agree though that the traitors haven't had the opportunity to sabotage any tasks (yet). The only thing people have to go on is suspicion and reading each other's attitudes and body language. Hence why Kas went and made a point of using the most ridiculous accusation levelled against him as his parting shot.

It's all edited and that's fine but there are flaws with this for sure

1. How are they expected to solve a mystery if there are no clues whatsoever. The traitors should be asked to sabotage tasks etc so the rest can logically deduce who might have done it.
2. The number of traitors is too small. There should be more of them from the very beginning and there should be no recruiting. That would make it really worth to traitor-hunt. As it stands, they are just being replaced and they always reach the final.
3. In the current format there's no point in eliminating traitors. You just have to try and stay in the game and only act on suspicions at the end.

It's not a logic, reasoning game as such. It is just about how do I not get voted out and how do I stay under the traitors' radar. And as everybody is just concerned about saving their own skin, the whole thing becomes very random. They banish anybody and everybody as long as it's not them.

It's good tv for now, but it's not a reasoning/ skills game.
I do hope they'll keep working on the format.

It's all edited and that's fine but there are flaws with this for sure

1. How are they expected to solve a mystery if there are no clues whatsoever. The traitors should be asked to sabotage tasks etc so the rest can logically deduce who might have done it.
2. The number of traitors is too small. There should be more of them from the very beginning and there should be no recruiting. That would make it really worth to traitor-hunt. As it stands, they are just being replaced and they always reach the final.
3. In the current format there's no point in eliminating traitors. You just have to try and stay in the game and only act on suspicions at the end.

It's not a logic, reasoning game as such. It is just about how do I not get voted out and how do I stay under the traitors' radar. And as everybody is just concerned about saving their own skin, the whole thing becomes very random. They banish anybody and everybody as long as it's not them.

It's good tv for now, but it's not a reasoning/ skills game.
I do hope they'll keep working on the format.

Yes I really like The Mole! I think it also makes more sense as the mole is secretly trying to sabotage the missions. I think it would be much better if they had to do the same in the Traitors.

I thought that round table was the best and good on Maia. Armani was so taken aback that she couldn't defend herself. If she'd had time to think she could have easily said 'yes I've been suspecting you too as you're behaving out of character'.

At least some of the group listened to Maia, otherwise you questitn the intelligence of the faithfuls😆

Why do traitors want to recruit more? I can’t see what the incentive for that is?

I'm assuming someone, at some point has said, 'Look, the only difference between a traitor and a faithful is that a traitor got tapped on the shoulder at the first round table! They didn't cast a separate category of Natural Evil, Devious Personalities as traitors!'

Well… presumably producers and / or a psychologist have thought about who ought to be a traitor? Not natural evil etc but either willingness or a propensity for that role.

My ongoing sadness with the show is how - shock to no one - if you are different you arouse suspicion. Yin was a quirky Asian woman, for example, and I think Kaz’s race was more of a factor than his being a doctor. I’m autistic and I would absolutely be voted off for not looking shocked enough/happy enough/being talkative enough etc. Obvious but no less sad for it.

I think it's all down to clever editing. The three "potentials" always come in together, but they're not necessarily the last ones to enter the room. It's just edited to look that way.

Someone will say "who's left" or "who's missing" but you're not necessarily seeing that comment in the context of who's actually walking through the door.

It really would be a massive flaw otherwise.

DH is obsessed by what we can see of the food, and keeps saying 'Those croissants look like shoe leather' and musing on where the nearest fresh croissant is available to a catering crew in a castle somewhere vaguely near Inverness.

I did imagine they had a more substantial breakfast first thing in the hotel, as they're clearly not hungry for the on set one and are just drinking juice and fiddling with the odd croissant. And obviously the whole thing would be rather less dramatic if everyone was horsing into their sausages and eggs and ignoring the door. 😀

I know lunch is an opportunity for people to chat and plot in small groups but I couldn't handle eating off my lap in an armchair while theorising about strategies and tells.

One thing I do wish Faithful would ask more, especially in the later stages of the game, is why people haven't been murdered

that annoyed me in the last series. Harry got a shield and made a song and dance the next day about how he would have been murdered otherwise. But no one asked him at the round table how come he wasn’t murdered when he didn’t have it

I think this will be my last year watching it,
it’s boring now