“Am I or amnt I?” Traitors Season 2 *Tv pace/No spoilers* - Thread 2

[CaveMum]

Thread 2 as the last one filled up fast!

We’re starting this one after Ep4 has aired.

NO SPOILERS please!

Yes, but if Andrew was the Traitor then why didn’t they murder Paul rather than Meg?

That seems to be the logic anyway.

Yes, I get that - I just can't quite work out if it really was as automatic as 'Meg was murdered, therefore Paul is the traitor'?

(First time to this programme for me this year, am just working it all out!)

Andrew got the benefit that Paul was hoping for, once he was rescued all attention moved from him to the people who were left in the dungeon.

The main thing that made people suspicious of Paul is their complete surprise that he survived and Meg didn’t, as they thought he was so popular that he had to be the main target for murder.

From Paul’s perspective, at least Andrew seemed to come out of there convinced that Paul was a Faithful. I think in an interview Meg also said that she had no inkling that Paul might be a traitor after spending that time with him in the dungeon, whereas she came out feeling sure that Ash was.

The faithful must believe Andrew is more likely to be faithful hence why they chose him for immunity. They could have chosen to protect any of the 4.
They would have been wasting the shield if they thought he was a traitor as a traitor cannot be murdered.
Their logic was if Meg survives it’s because she us a traitor. Posters have outlined that when Antony tried applying this same logic to Paul, it was brushed aside. Paul dragged Johnny’s name back into the ring to say that Johnny was a traitor.
With Ross’s suspicions and Paul’s the others followed suit. Ignoring their own logic that if 2 traitors were in the dungeon then it most certainly meant that Paul is a traitor.
The traitors were very aware that they had made a cock up.
However, Antony and Jaz were both brushed aside as people preferred to believe Paul and Ross.

Not to ruin your fun, but think it's just Paul people are saying they don't like not the traitors as a whole. Because he's so smug he's playing it well so early on, rather than a "bad guy". Anyway traitor are supposed to be bad guys aren't they?

Well, OK there's been one post that took it to another level and had him cheating on his wife and claiming other people's hard work as his own in his job. But hey ho, you go on reality TV, you will be judged this is not news to anyone. But it's not always negative judgement, there's posters increasingly mad to defend him.

Also it's entertaining disliking him - like a pantomime villian. With any luck he'll stay a while with increasing smugness. Then get exposed in a dramatic way.

Anthony was making out it was a logical argument that should have been applied to Paul once Meg was murdered, but it wasn’t actually logic, it was all about suspicion.

People were suspicious of Ash, and suspicious of Meg - so thought there was definitely one, and probably two traitors in the dungeon.

It was pretty much 50/50 whether to save Andrew or Paul, and they went for Andrew.

They thought that left Faithful Paul in there with potentially two traitors (in which case Paul was absolutely doomed).

Ash was then banished, so they were proved right about one traitor.

They thought that left Faithful Paul and probably Traitor Meg (as they were still really suspicious about her) - in which case Paul was done for as he was the only choice for murder.

Instead it was Meg that was murdered. They had to reassess, as now it looked like it was Faithful Paul and Faithful Meg, and actually there had only been one traitor in the dungeon after all (Ash).

They were proved wrong about Meg, but that didn’t mean Paul suddenly had to be a traitor (and up until then no one really suspected him).

The lingering question niggling away at everyone ever since is why did the remaining traitors murder Meg instead of Paul.

Thanks so much.
I still don't get why they were sure Meg was a traitor though?
They'd already found Ash, and then Andrew could be a traitor too, so why xid they focus on Meg specifically?

When Ash was on Uncloaked, she was a different person!

They weren't sure Meg was a traitor but they strongly suspected her - usual nonsense groupthink based on nothing but her being quite reserved. No one (outwardly) thought Paul or Andrew at that stage.

This show really highlights the nature of herd mentality. I can't believe how few people are prepared to think for themselves instead of just following the pack. Especially when who "influences" and who "follows" is largely dictated by personality type rather than actual intelligence and/or analytical ability. It's both fascinating and a bit scary, when you consider that these competitors are actually representative of a cross-section of society....

In the context of the game following the herd is a reasonable tactic as well though (so it is weird that Brian felt quite so upset about being called a sheep!).

If you vote the same way you think others are going to vote you can stand or fall together. If you vote alone or as part of a small minority you stick your head above the parapet and potentially become a target - which is why Jaz doesn’t want to vote for Paul unless he can persuade a decent sized herd to join him!

Yes, that makes sense. It would be interesting to see how different the results would be if the votes were anonymous! The point is that it only takes one person to start a campaign to bring down another player - yesterday it was Ross against Jonny - and if the accuser is sufficiently charismatic, most of the others will follow. But if (for example) Anthony or Jaz try the same against Paul, they find it so much harder to get people on board, despite being quite smart and having sound reasons for their suspicions. It happens in real-life situations too, when a quieter individual with a really good idea is ignored because the weight of opinion illogically favours the "noisier" types, even when they turn out to be totally wrong!

Playing devil's advocate, wouldn't it be sensible for Jaz to stick his head above the parapet and be very vocal against Paul? That way, Paul won't murder him as it would be too obvious. He could, of course, be banished because Saint Paul has his disciples.

I've also just realised the cloaks are green and not black - unless it's just my TV 😅

I think although some quieter individuals are ignored, it’s also worth remembering that at this stage banishing Traitors is a bit of a side show - it is no more useful than banishing Faithfuls.

All everyone needs to focus on is making sure that they personally don’t get banished. Other than that it doesn’t really matter if the person who goes is a Faithful or a Traitor, it still gets you one step closer to the prize.

Getting rid of Traitors rather than Faithful only becomes really important in the end game when there are just a few players left. For the sake of the show though they have to make it seem really important right from the start, as if getting rid of a Faithful is a failure. It isn’t - it is a success for everyone else who survives to fight another day!

You could even argue it is better to keep the original Traitors in the game for a long as possible. It seems like newly recruited traitors may have an advantage as they know what it is like to be Faithful and build those relationships. New recruits might be even more dangerous and harder to identify.

At the moment, I don't think enough of the herd would turn on Paul and it could very well backfire on Jaz. Paul is articulate and playing it well. He could either turn the group against Jaz, or murder Jaz and then talk his way out of it along the lines of "well Jaz said if he was murdered I'm a traitor, so now the traitors have murdered him to turn it on me".

I really enjoy watching Paul, I think he's a pantomime villain having the time of his life, and he lets of steam in the armchair chats, because he's got no one else he can really talk to. I don't think he'll get to the end though. At some point, there will be enough people doubting him to say "sorry, but we need to banish you to find out one way or the other".

(Sorry, long post coming, I'm just catching up on the day's posts!).

I thought many pp were very insightful re, unconscious bias, and sadly I do think that's at play with Paul and Andrew.

I missed the first episode so I didn't see the Anthony/Diane line thing, but I did find that conversation with Zack infuriating. He just kept saying "let me talk", then didn't say anything, and then got more irate when Zack filled the silence. It's unfortunate, but I don't think Anthony's style will influence anyone.

I think Harry was genuinely upset. I can't decide how clever he is at the game or not. I think he'd have been smarter NOT to tell Paul what Jaz was saying.

(Not that long in the end, I've totally lost my train of thought 🤷‍♀️)

If the traitor get voted out they just get replaced by more recruited traitors, so surely if you really suspect someone as a traitor youre better off making friend with them and keeping on their good side and then when 🤞 you get to the final, call them out then.

As pp said staying in is winning, regardless of who is getting voted out .

Maybe they can only recruit when given the opportunity to do so.

I'm sad Jonny has gone.

I rewatched this week's episodes this afternoon.
Harry was genuinely upset at having to vote out Jonny - the military bond thing, must have felt like voting out a brother.
Paul was not genuinely upset. I hope Paul is playing a character. Must be exhausting having that fixed smirk all day.

Part of the fun of these shows is seeing not just the contestants speculate wildly but also us as viewers do the same. There's no way I'd enjoy these shows a tenth as much if there weren't online discussions where we all chuck in our opinions. I used to belong to another forum and before each series of Big Brother we had to choose a number which would be the order in which a brand new constestant entered the house, and whoever we got, we had to support them fully for the whole series or until they got evicted, arguing the case for them no matter what they did. It really made the show a more enjoyable experience.

I was struck by how Ash said when she was standing in front of them all after being voted out, that her time with the group was so great and she had never full on belly laughed as much in her whole life but of course we as the viewers have not been presented with this aspect of the team bonding, just the bits edited to make it look like they are all in paranoid murder mystery mode at every opportunity.

Clearly Paul must be presenting to the group as a whole in a way we are not being shown by the producers. I hink on balance of probabilities he is a genuinely lovely guy who is hamming it up for the viewers and the cameras when in "traitor" mode and for that reason he's a great contestant.

On another note entirely, I don't recall seeing Ash say to the group the actual words "I am a traitor" did she say this and I missed it, or was it left out of the show for some reason?

I’ve just listened to the podcast. It was interesting that Jonny said he understood Harry’s position. In the army you are given a task and you complete the task. That’s what he is doing.

'I missed the first episode so I didn't see the Anthony/Diane line thing, but I did find that conversation with Zack infuriating. He just kept saying "let me talk", then didn't say anything, and then got more irate when Zack filled the silence'

Anthony reminds me of the phrase 'empty vessels make the most sound'. He's a fairly unattractive personality - very prickly and defensive

@Nesbi The main thing that made people suspicious of Paul is their complete surprise that he survived and Meg didn’t, as they thought he was so popular that he had to be the main target for murder.

Yes this is the key logic piece I think. Paul is so popular that he'll never get banished. Therefore the only chance the Traitors ever had to get rid of him was after the dungeon - instead they murdered Meg who was already under suspicion and had no real backers/buddies...

If you think he's a Faithful that's really hard to explain.

That's why it is so likely - logically - that he must be a Traitor. But no one wants to admit it and he's a master of deflection and manipulation...

I don't like the guy but he's playing a hell of a game!