The Traitors S2 - THE AFTERMATH

[MaggieFS]

Discuss!

I am really surprised by people who think Harry has come out of this badly. I would hire him in an instant. Takes all sorts, I guess.

I disagree that it's patronising.
I don't think she came across as vulnerable during the game at all. But she did on Uncloaked, and understandably so. I'd have felt very vulnerable in that situation. To realise you were played like that is painful.
Vulnerability isn't weakness, it's a natural human response to certain life events. It's not a criticism, nor is it patronising. We're all vulnerable at times.

@Christmasisover I think this is why, even though yes it's a game and yes he played it brilliantly, it sits badly with me. Watching a trusting young woman get told "you can trust me a babe" by a cute lad who then betrays her just echoes actual life situations so closely that it's really sad and uncomfortable to watch. That says as much about wider society than it does about any of the individuals in the game, it's just depressing to watch a classic social script play out like that - again.

See if I was an employer, I'd avoid him like the plague! I'd hire Jaz in a heartbeat though. Takes all sorts as you say. Honesty is so important to me...

Been pondering how to try and explain how I see Harry as a player.

I don't think he was a great strategist. I think he was a great opportunist. Of course he had to make decisions like they all did, but I don't think he was a master strategist. He was fortunate there were quite a few coat tails for him to ride on, for example Paul being such a big character from the start and being so vocal. I don't think Harry was the puppet master he later tried to make out to be. Similarly, picking up that Mollie was gullible and therefore useful and cultivating that relationship was taking advantage of the situation.

I also doubt he could have played any other character apart from the cheeky chappy. He was lucky it was the one which sheep people are susceptible to. There's a lesson there for everyone!

So at the end, I'm undecided. Was he the greatest traitor? In simple terms, yes of course, because he won. But I actually think it's more that he was the luckiest, rather than the best.

Think about the various cross roads during the show... if the team had chosen to save Paul instead of Andrew from the dungeon (not implausible although it was a gamble by Paul), if Harry hadn't got the shield.

Wonder boy certainly got lucky many times!

Yes, I don't see dishonesty in Traitors as an indication of dishonesty in real life because that's the point of the game. I would hire Jaz too.

There is no way on god's green earth I would ever hire Mollie.

Amazing how some viewers are quick to label a contestant thick and lacking critcal thinking, whilst they themselves lack the ability to think criticality on how differently things would appear if they if they hadn't started the game knowing who was a traitor. That bit of knowledge influences how you view behaviors throughout the game.

There's quite a few people on here who be the contestants full sure they can spot a liar and read people. They'd end up being the very people they critise 😂.

It's such a pity social media exists - without it we could have programme like this, which are interesting insight to human nature. We could watch it, enjoy liking and disliking the characters on the programme. Then it ends and we never think about or hear from the contrstants again - unless its another series of the programme.

Sadly instead we end up.with harmful mob style campaigns against individuals. (Which is always even more ironic when one of the criticism is about being a sheep and not being about the think independently - when they are unquestioningly thinking along with the mob (herd) themselves.) Plus the very high chance the programme will eventually be ruined as it'll just have contestants who just want to be famous.

Obviously I mean social media like X. Still need places like MN to discuss it whilst it is on for the fun!!

Yes. Very disappointing.

Is uncloaked worth a watch? Didn't watch last night

The first season of Traitors Oz had a scenario play out that involved someone being far too trusting and looking heartbroken that they were duped, but the differences between that scenario and this highlight that there are many different ways these games can play out.

Wish I could expand on that more clearly but I know some people will want to watch it.

@RonSwansonsChair

There WAS a spoiler on Thursday's Uncloaked. Zach said something like "I feel guilty my theory got more than one faithful banished". At that point only Jasmine had been banished. Therefore he let slip about Evie's banishment.

@MaggieFS I completely agree with your summary. It's annoying that Zach took up the shield narrative so quickly so we never saw Harry being challenged. We didn't ever really see how he would think on his feet until Andrew came for him at the end when it was too late. I think he's smirking may have alerted more switched on contestants.

I do feel for Mollie who was completely played. I think she just had such a strong vision of her and Harry sharing the money together - she'd talked about it quite a few times- that she was never going to be swayed, though obviously had her doubts right at the end.

Still team Jaz despite him not knowing who Agatha Christie is.

@Figgygal yes I thought Uncloaked was good - though there was very weird going on with Ed Gambol's make-up, he was two completely different colours. But maybe everyone looks weirdly coloured next to Claudia!

Yes! Everyone was on it including Claudia.

Yes @Nesbi the first Season of Traitors US also had a situation where someone not very bright was duped and cried endlessly. Their end cry was " I thought you were my friend. I trusted you!" I can't fathom why. They thought they were playing a different game about friendship.

Not only did Jaz not know who Agatha Christie was, he didn't know the difference between a tiger and a leopard! He was still great at the game though.

@ohmydiddlydays There is a pure logic way to ensure she didn't lose if, as was the case (although she couldn't know it for sure) there was only one traitor left - although I don't blame her for not thinking it through in the moment under huge pressure. It would be a good idea for future contestants to study and learn the different game theory plays for different firepit scenarios, the way chess players study different moves.

In this case, she should have always voted for whoever cast a green fire.

If there are 3 people left: you, someone who votes to banish while someone votes to end, and you are not a traitor, you have 4 different scenarios:

1. There is one traitor left. If this is the case, the traitor would vote to end it, as they will automatically get 100% of the prize. Conclusion: vote green to catch the traitor.

2. There are two traitors left, and they both vote to end it, knowing they will take 50% of the prize money. If this is the case, you can't win anyway, but you MIGHT be in situation (1), so just in case, vote green to catch one of two traitors.

3. There are two traitors left. One votes to end it, one votes to banish, aiming to bag themselves 100% of the money, not 50%. You can't win anyway now, but you MIGHT be in situation (1). Conclusion: vote green to catch a traitor.

4. There are no traitors left. You have to banish someone, and if indeed there are no traitors left, you'll get 50% of the cash - but you can't know if this is the case until the end, so you have to assume one of the above scenarios is still possible. Conclusion: vote green.

The latter is where Mollie messed up. She thought everyone left was a Faithful, but she should have put that aside and applied logic. It's not easy in the moment but this is why people who play high pressure games need to study the potential moves in advance!

I think it hugely depends on the job!

I think you could really see Harry's more natural, relaxed, open, chatty and friendly personality on Uncloaked

This showed me that he must have been really restrained and quite pensive as the series went on

It makes me think he adapted brilliantly to the situation he was in

Harry really did play a blinder

They all come across really nice on Uncloaked. Ash was so useless in the game, so personable in real life. I do feel sorry for her actually, as she barely had time to find her feet before being banished. Anthony also seemed really fun.

I feel for mollie but even though it was a long time ago, I remember how I was at 21 and don’t think she was particularly gullible or weak as so many posters are saying. She’s young and probably hasn’t experienced a wide variety of the worst characters in life- I certainly hadn’t! It’s entirely natural for a young woman to let her emotions cloud her judgement!

it’s just horrible how many people are calling her thick and gullible on here

On the subject of hiring them, based off the programme, sure it depends on what for.

Jaz certainly display the ability analyse but lacks the ability to communicate and influence opinion.

Harry showed the ability to adapt strategy quickly and be ruthless. Just too young to reign in the self praise. (Mind you that might not go- Paul got that.)

Molly is loyal and resilient - she didn't shirk from the challenges despite the difficulties she faced. She's young so has a lot of time to develop herself by learning from experiences.

Andrew was the same as Harry he was just slower to adapt (which I suspect it cognitive due to his accident).

I agree with a lot of your post. I know I'd be a rubbish contestant on The Traitors. I couldn't be a traitor. But I'm probably a hopeless sleuth too, so I don't think I'd last long!

Re people labelling Mollie. I've stayed away from much of the online commentary. Labelling someone as stupid isn't nice. I agree. I do think that in that specific moment Mollie wasn't thinking critically, but not due to poor intellect. I think it was extremely difficult for her to think critically when she'd been so blindsided by Harry's charms. Her emotions at that time, and her deep desire to trust, eclipsed her ability to use reason in those few seconds. I understand how it happened, and my thoughts are just 'poor Mollie' (in a non-patronising way!)

Aspects of the show, and the final and discussion since, have left me feeling very uncomfortable. It's gripping telly, but it leaves casualties in its wake, in a way other games don't. Apart from the players, loads of us Jaz supporters have been left so deflated! I'm embarrassed that I allowed myself to get so sucked in, and I'm very glad this board is anonymous!

Yes that's what I was thinking- at that moment, surely a traitor would vote to end the game, so Jaz revealed himself as likely to be a faithful. That said, it was very tense, and no wonder Molly couldn't think straight.

I did think the end with Harry just drinking champagne on his own seemed a bit hollow. But he played the game really well.

I think Jaz did absolutely the right thing by keeping his thoughts to himself till the end

He saw others getting murdered left right and centre for stating their opinion

We were lucky he was able to vocalise his thoughts in private so we as the audience knew what he was thinking

It made it very interesting to us a the viewer

He'd have been voted out much sooner otherwise

He must be so annoyed with Mollie though

He got so close

He did what he had to

I still don't buy the Andrew was slow narrative. There was one clip shown where he looked befuddled that first breakfast after being made a traitor, and then get got into the swing of things. And for all we know he might actually have been trying to find some coffee amongst all of the fruit carvings.

He's an affable guy and he often said how complicated it was in the yellow chair, but again, I don't think he was slow. He was very quick to react to the elusive convo.