If you had been Stephen.... (Traitors spoilers)

It's not a question of common sense; it's a question of different moral values.

It's perfectly ok to disagree with each other but saying that it's "common sense" to deceive Rachel implies that those of us who hope we wouldn't deceive her if faced with that temptation, are being stupid.

Thank you, at last some common sense. Someone upthread implied that because he is religious, God would think it OK to deceive all the faithful but not Rachel. 😂

Because that’s the point of the game, to hoodwink the faithfuls. If the traitors didn’t do that, it’d be over by the first day.

Traitors can and do betray each other. I think what was different with Rachel and Stephen is that they promised to never write each other’s name on the chalk board and they stuck to that the whole way through. Stephen voted for both Hugo and Fiona, even though they were both traitors. There’s no obligation to win as a team of traitors - and most don’t. This was a bit different because they made the pact and stuck to it throughout the game.

Because, if you're a traitor, then deceiving faithfuls into thinking that you're also a traitor, is part of the game and everybody playing knows that traitors will lie about their status.

Being deceptive to Rachel is morally different because they had made pact so he would be going back on his word. They both behaved ethically by sticking together and having each other's backs.

I can’t understand why it’s okay to hoodwink a faithful but not a traitor? Why does he have more integrity for not taking the £95k from Rachel but for all the other faithfuls that’s fair game. I wouldn’t have thought any less of him for taking it all.

Right after posting this I read that they are given clothes that brands lend the show.

Jade and Rachel both wore ~£400 cardigans from the same place. I wonder if they came from the wardrobe department or something (although that seems unlikely, given the cost), it’s just quite a coincidence. I mean, it’s not like they both bought expensive jumpers from John Lewis. It’s a more niche shop selling hand made knits. It’s not mass produced.

I'm not sure I agree that Rachel would have been more ruthless. She didn't vote for Hugo when lots had suspicions on him and it felt like he was favourite to go, whereas Stephen did.

He’s probably already quite well off as a cyber security consultant although it sounds like he came from humble beginnings. I read that some of his outfits were quite expensive, as were the designer knitwear that Jade and Rachel wore.

I love the fact they kept their word. They didn’t have to make that promise to each other so it was a great end that they stuck to it.

I think if he had double crossed her it would have been even worse than the Harry/ Mollie drama - the whole point of the game is to convince the faithful you are NOT a traitor so Harry’s back was against the wall there. He couldn’t do anything else and it doesn’t mean he was lacking in integrity for winning the game. Stephen had already won the game by the point where it was down to Jack, Stephen and Rachel - it was just a question about how much he was going to walk away with.

(I actually wouldn’t have judged him negatively in any true sense for fucking her over though! The drama, I just love it Mick!)

Its not just about being selfless. Giving the money to her is him also being selfish, as he now looks great and will be featured in more magazines. Magazines pay a lot of money. Kerry Katona said that she used to get 100,000 for an OK magazine feature!

The gameshow bit is the not getting caught as a traitor. So lying and deceiving is part of that. Team Traitor vs Team Faithful.

The traitors had already won at the end.

The end part was different. Stephen had promised he wouldn't write Rachel's name on the board and he didn't. He kept his word which makes him an amazing person.

If he had voted her off and taken her share then I'm not sure that would have worked morally for him, not to mention he wouldn't have been very popular afterwards.

I think he felt that Rachel had earned her share and a promise was a promise.

I would have shared. But that's the sort of person I am.

Honour among thieves.

He can afford to pay £858 on a single outfit for the show.

He could afford to take the hit and not be then cast in the media as the biggest two faced liar in the country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9y1747z3go

He did the right thing for him.

People in more desperate circumstances may have done differently and depending on the circumstances that may or may not be reasonable.

When Stephen said it wasn't worth it to take all the money himself, I did wonder whether he meant in terms of guilt or in terms of reputation.

Would you give up £50k for the majority of the British public to see you as a nice guy especially if you're aim is to use the show as a springboard as a media personality? I know I would.

Apart from anything else, it did say that his day job was cyber security. His employer must have been looking on with interest!

I suspect he’ll make more money out of having honoured the agreement in the long term as he’s more marketable this way.

He’s going to probably get other £ opportunities now for being the ‘good’ guy so, financially, this decision might work out better for him.

I really hope that I would have made the same decision as Stephen. It was a huge amount of money so it would have been tempting to keep it all but I think of myself as a person of integrity. If I did vote off Rachel, I would feel very ashamed of myself and wouldn't be able to look my friends and family in the face.

Lying to a faithful that you're also a faithful is fair enough, that's what's expected in the game. But shafting your team mate when you've had a pact not to write each other's names and you've supported each other and had each other's backs throughout the game is completely different.

I would have voted Rachel and taken all the money, mainly because I would’ve been worried she was going to double cross me and had set Jack up to vote for me, but I’m glad he didn’t, he’ll probably make more than £40k in TV appearances anyway.

They don't need to edit it if they choose the correct order at the time. They can see over the contestants' shoulders and know what is on the slates. They then choose the order of revealing and feed that instruction to Claudia, via a earphone hidden under her carefully tousled hair.

I would have done the same as him.

For pp saying he could have taken all the money and wouldn’t have had to see the others again that’s not true.

They get invited to various media appearances and opportunities along with other contestants, and it’s probably written into their contract to attend these. So yeah he would have had to face Rachel.

And even it’s not obligatory it will surely be a benefit of them to attend to help continue to grow their fanbase/maximimse future opportunities.

Secondly, Stephen will have had his own conscience to contend with and the mirror to look into at the end of this - which is probably what swayed him the most.

I get it’s a game that involves lying and he lied all along, since he is a traitor but doing it this way showed integrity within the boundaries of the game.

By the game natures of course no-one especially traitors can be completely honest, but his decision did show some loyalty among thieves so to speak and teamwork!

It will benefit his public profile in the longterm and may lead to opportunities where he gets more than the 50K he “lost”

I didn’t think Jack deserved it anyway, he seems a popular guy but not sure if he actually played the game that well. I think Stephen and Rachel played a smart game, So I was pleased at the result.

Me neither.

No I think that the producers edit it/

I don’t think they edit the order the the slates are revealed, I think production check the slates and choose the order based on that.
Sorry, that's what I meant. The producers organise who is the last to reveal at the time, not edit it afterwards.