The Traitorz #5 - with a cursive Z

[witchycat2]

Continued discussion for series 3 of The Traitors UK.

And I think the traitors should kill Jake. I don't think it's too suspicious because he's been saying it's Linda for ages, more suspicious he's still there. Just play it as a double bluff if it raises eyebrows.

I wonder if they’ll go after Alexander if Fozia is murdered? It would be a logical (but false) assumption that one of them has come in as a Traitor and if Fozia goes it obviously wasn’t her.

I think we are all reading a bit too much in to why Anna did not fully analyse the letter from the traitors. I suspect all her thoughts and emotions were rightly focussed on the decision she faced - would it be best to accept the invitation to be a traitor or refuse because of the risk of being made a scapegoat? I’m not sure if I had been in her position I would have had the bandwidth to be wondering about phrasing and spelling in the moment of having the letter in my hand.

I guess even the following morning Anna did not feel confident to discuss the letter with others, fearing what reprisal there might be for refusing to accept the offer.

Absolutely. I’m not querying Anna’s response at all, only why some posters appeared to think her Irishness hampered her comprehension of an entirely ordinary phrase in standard English. It’s fairly clear that the pressure of the moment governs a lot of the communication on the show, judging by what gets written on the slates at the round table.

Does anyone else get a fingernails-on-blackboard feeling when some of the players accuse others of being in a clique and pronounce it "click"? I'm not expecting correct French pronunciation, but some attempt at "cleak" would be nice!

Absolutely!

I'm part Irish myself, and that wasn't what I meant at all. My post was completely misconstrued. Can't speak for others though.

If Fozia survives, I hope the traitors spin it to link her and Leanne and suggest one or both of them are traitors, highlighting that the day Fozia joined is the same day Anna was attempted to be recruited, and that Fozia gave Leanne the shield after Leanne worked hard to get her released.

I'm not sure how the last round of the death match is going to work, but it seems to me that if it's on the same basis as the first two rounds, whoever goes first is bound to lose. L=life card, D=death card

• If the first player starts with LD, they will not give away L. They will hand over their D card and get a D card back. So the second player will know that the L card is the one that the first player didn't offer.
• If the first player starts with DD, they might get the L card, but the second player will just grab it back.
• If the first player starts with DD and doesn't get the L card, the second player will just swap their D card.

So I hope they changed the rules. Already in the first two rounds whoever went first had a disadvantage because they had no chance to get the L card back if they lost it.

@samarrange

Yes, you are right. Maybe they play 'blind' - so cards facing down - for the last round?

We are re-watching S2 as DD and I are trying to recruit DS into the cult world of Traitors. I picked S2 as I think he will like Harry and get a kick out of the final episode.

I had forgotten how good Jaz was. There doesn't seem to be anyone with quite the same amount of intuition as Jaz in this season. Not yet anyway....

I don't think the cards will be used. The traitors will step forward (masked) and point to the player they want you to recruit. If the player accepts they are recruited, and the other player is murdered.

If the player chosen by the traitors declines recruitment they will be murdered and the other player is forced to recruited. Realistically the first player will accept when they are given the choice of recruitment or murder.

They won't reveal themselves to the murdered player. Only to the recruited one.

Unfortunately I think any potentially fantastic faithfuls might have gone very near the beginning. Elen seemed to have excellent intuition. I reckon Yin would have been good, but wasn't given a chance.
I actually think Fozia and Alexander show great promise. Obviously Jake's been right about Linda from the off.
But, I agree that Jaz will probably be the best faithful of all time. He was so clever, as well as correctly guessing the traitors (mostly, he wasn't always right) he managed to keep information to himself till the right time. Had he stuck his head above the parapet, he'd not have lasted so long. I desperately wanted him to win!

Woke up at stupid o'clock so put on a podcast where they were having an 'exit' interview with the person last banish from the US Traitors. (Probably wrong choice as a hope to get back to sleep podcast - ir wasn't relaxing - people on Traitors US are high energy!!)

Anyway, it was mentioned how the rules could be changed to focus people to finding and banishing Traitors better (rather than on a whim due to something vaugue). Ideas like if a faithful is banished there's a double murder or those that voted are up for murder sheild of not. Also is a traitor is banished there's no murder.

Thought it would be interesting - the consequences it'd have on numbers left in aside - but a consequence for voting to banish a faithful could be interesting and could prevent voting based on something vague (like "because he's a doctor") as people could think about the reason more.

This wouldn't work because they don't have anything to go on. Punishing them for banishing faithfuls doesn't give them more evidence? It's not like they aren't trying at the moment.
I think the best thing would be to do more trials where there is an even bigger incentive for the traitors to sabotage. Like they tried in the trial with the chests earlier this season. That would give real clues.

This pretty much sums it up so far…

Instagram

Anyone know if can view instagram without having it? Applies to TikTok also? Pretty please

That's true - but it might make people think more about if something could really be why a person is a traitor (so could rule out everyone deciding to banish Kas based on him being a doctor). But they really don't have much to go on at all - so mighr just result in more hearted debate and dramatic emotion. (Must point out this suggestion came from a faithful contestant bitter they weren't chose as a traitor and put out they'd been banished!!)

Agree they do need more clues - traitors have it too eaay from that prospective. First season they had nothing - but think the tasks are starting to change so the traitors need to show themselves a bit more.

The clues we see, we see as a clue, because we know that person is a traitor. Such as Linda's "bad acting", which is in fact her personality, so those in the castle aren't seeing her as acting weird (breakfast crying aside, which they did clock). I saw a clip of them on the train and Linda reaction is no different to her dramatic reactions in the castle - so not just bad acting

The problem is that the game's already weighted so heavily in favour of the traitors, that anything else that penalises faithfuls even further, would seem like a move in the wrong direction.

Great article in the Radio Times. I agree with most of it. I don't think this year is a patch on either of the last two series. Though I finally got into it a lot more after last week...

www.radiotimes.com/tv/entertainment/reality-tv/the-traitors-season-3-cast-problem-comment/

Agree with most of this. It's always problematic for subsequent series' of anything with a psychological element, when the players are really familiar with what's happened in the past.

With everything so weighted in favour of The Traitors, I think that there should be more risk/clues for the Faithful to go on so they stop relying on non-sensical hunches based on previous shows.

Maybe some challenges could require the Traitors to do a mini sabotage in plain sight or 'steal back' shields or complete an additional task or do something that the others can be looking out for. Or challenges that are unique to the Traitors that need to be completed over the course of the day or otherwise risk 'unmasking and banishing'. Nothing major - but if at breakfast, Claudia announced that each Traitor has been given a gold dagger and at some point each of them must return it to the Library or touch someone's right shoulder, whatever... I don't know, but SOMETHING for the Faithful to look out for. That might help?

Thanks for the link to the article @WinterCosiness It's a well thought out assessment and I agree with most of it. The producers may have clocked all this whilst filming but the detrimental effect of the players' approach possibly wasn't fully realised until they were in the edit suite.

I think they should bring the detective/sheriff rule in to later seasons. It would shift the balance back slightly towards the faithfuls, and if they were murdered/banished a new one could be selected by Claudia but they'd have to start from scratch. It'd give the faithfuls more incentive to think carefully before banishing (as you really don't want to get rid of the detective with increasingly more info) and would put more heat on the traitors as there could always be someone who 100% knows what you are.

How would a detective/sheriff player work? I didn't really follow the example that was given previously (last thread? Can't find it now).

I think a huge issue is that, as has already been mentioned, the difficulty in recruiting 30-50 year olds. Which is why there are so many pneumatic youngsters; some scenes ('The Click' 😉) reminded me of being back in the fourth form!

The RT article is correct in that they aren't 'playing the game', they're trying to outwit and second guess the producers.

Maybe time for a break and a reset?