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

[Allswellthatendswelll]

It's a Traitors one sorry! I know this has probably been discussed elsewhere.

Would you have taken all the money when you had the chance at the end (by voting with Jack to banish Rachel)? A few people have told me they would have and I'm now looking at them in a different way (lightheartedly)!

I wouldn't have but part of it is I would never have been able to face Rachel or Jack afterwards and that wouldn't be worth 50k to me.

YABU- He should have taken the money, 50k is alot and its a game about lying.

YANBU- No he made a promise. It was good he kept his integrity.

Does anyone know how to watch the after show ? Podcast one

Are these what you're after?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001ty6w/the-traitors-uncloaked

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0h0q056

I saw something online from Hope MacCauley saying they had been asked to supply a few pieces for the series. Their sales have rocketed since so I would believe that.
The contestants probably largely wear their own clothes.

I think Stephen did the right thing. Having honourable Traitors has brought something new to the show and I think a lot of his future brand and potential earnings could come from being nice.

I think Rachel was just as deserving as him and I am glad he shared it.

Frankie from Series 3 said that she was lent some shoes and a belt. I expect they bring their own clothes then can borrow the odd item.

You're outing yourself as someone who puts money above morals. What other morals would you cast aside for money?

I wouldn’t have been able to enjoy victory at all if I’d gone back on my promise - YANBU

I don't get why people are saying 'it's the game.' There is literally nothing in the game 'rules' or ethos saying that traitors have to double cross each other. The whole game is based around 'who will win, traitors or faithful,' not 'who will be the singular overall winner?' If the producers only wanted one traitor to win they could easily set that up, they obviously deliberately chose not to!

Same with 'Rachel wouldn't have done the same to him.' But she literally did! Not only did she voluntarily promise him she'd never write his name on her board, she had multiple opportunities to throw him under the bus but instead had his back when the heat was on him earlier. Obviously we'll never know for sure but people saying that tend to seem to be basing it on a quite misogynistic view of how "likeable" they found her rather than anything she actually did throughout the entire game.

Yes but that doesn't say they ONLY wear their own clothes. I read an article that said they have a mix - they show the stylists their personal style beforehand and also get a few items to add to that. There will also be rules they have to follow like in almost any tv show - no visible logos (because of advertising rules), no t shirts with swearing/offensive styles etc.

If you honestly think they only wear their own stuff, what are the chances of all 5/6 of the last finalists happening to bring matching, all black training gear for the last 2 challenges? If you told 5 random people 'bring a selection of active wear' you'd have some people in hoodies and joggers, others in crop tops and shorts, all in different colours and patterns. Plus many people wouldn't have proper waterproof outdoor boots with sufficient grip etc.

I would sell my soul to the devil and sell my children into slavery.

nah it’s her job and a type
she’d have thrown him under the bus if he was in firing line more than her

They are clearly given a required 'kit list' - those all black outfits are all different and clearly from all over the place. I noticed that day and thought how there was such a mismatch of stuff which was clearly very old in some cases and brand new in others.

So yes it does look like some of them did go out and buy boots etc cos they don't have whilst others clearly did!

I absolutely think Rachel would have sold Stephen down the river if she'd been in the same position.

I wonder about this.

Rachel's masterstroke was convincing Stephen to remain in the pact even though she needed him much more than he needed her by the last few roundtables.

If the tables were turned and Stephen had as much heat on him as Rachel did towards the end, would she have created the narrative that she had no choice but to get him out? Quite possibly.

Stephen has definitely emerged looking like the lovely person he obviously is, which is worth more than money. So fair play to him.

It's impossible to know what Rachel would have done but if you look at Hugo, Stephen threw him under the bus but Rachel didn't at cost to her later. So I'm not sure why Stephen is the good one and Rachel is seen more negatively.

Yep. Although as someone pointed out upthread he was probably not just convinced by her, but actually felt intimidated by her.

I think he did brilliantly given all the rollercoaster of emotions (doubts, fears, guilt, and hope) he must have felt over the last couple of days.

If have done what Stephen did and anyone who would do differently is a shit.

He made a verbal agreement that Rachel stuck to. He knew why she wanted the money (to have family time with her mother, who has dementia).

It would’ve been tempting but I wouldn’t have been able to celebrate winning the money if I’d shafted her.

Those saying it’s a game - well, yeah, but that doesn’t mean you have to conduct yourself like an arsehole.

He has a life to live post-show. Better to be known as someone whose word means something.

I would love to think he’d done it just to be loyal.

I think he was a bright spark and realised he’d be much more popular this way, and will now make a lot more than the £50k ish that he “gave” Rachel.

So YANBU. I’d love to think I’d do it just to be nice but I also would only be in that position if like Stephen I had an eye on a showbiz career

And he’ll have remembered how badly Harry’s antics played with people

He wouldn’t have got that far without her and knew it - I think / hope.

Also his reputation and potential to gain from the exposure stood or fell by that decision. Being consistent, not confusingly nice / sneaky was important.

I think Rachel carried him for the first half of the show… her strategising was superior at that point.
He grew stronger and stronger as the show went on, and really played his part in the latter half, especially as so many faithfuls found him a likeable character and trusted him
with their thought processes. Well played both, very well deserved.

I think he wouldn’t have got there without Rachel - look at the blubbering wreck he was over Fiona, seeing Rachel standing firm pulled him through. So it would have been unfair if he had dumped Rachel.

He did the right thing.

but if he had chosen differently I think we would have seen a different programme. It was edited to show that Rachel deserved it. They could easily edit in a way that made Stepen decision to keep it all seem fair.

by sharing both him and Rachel will be much richer in n the long term

I 100% would have done the same as Stephen.
I know full well its a game and you literally are supposed to take as much as you can but if I made an agreement I have to honour it.
Also I would worry that the public would forget its a game and think that is how I would normally behave if I took it..
I think im to sensitive to public opinion and trolls to go on the Traitors!

My prediction is that he will profit far more from the win than she does. Being likeable and consistent are key to this.

As is being young, open, seemingly uncomplicated and not having had to do the hard work of planning and strategising that got them both that far - so not suffering the reputational consequences of being seen as scheming, closed, complicated and always one step ahead. Essentially she did the work, he reaps the rewards.