Is it that there are no traitors, or that they are recruiting?
That's why I said a couple of days, a day or maybe two could be seen as recruiting but if murders just stop, then = no traitors
And while the (lack of) rules allow it the producers can hardly keep inventing spurious 'because of X there won't be any murdering again tonight'
I have a feeling the traits that make Rachael quite good at this would also make her a pretty vile person to have in your life, either as a work colleague or a life partner.
make her a pretty vile person to have in your life
Really, you've taken that from watching a TV program about lying that she has played quite well? I actually think she is really showing the strain the last couple of episodes but as everybody has already decided she was a faithfull went largely unnoticed.
Really, you've taken that from watching a TV program about lying that she has played quite well?
Yep. Not from the lying part (that's the game). But she has a very aggressive and quite vindictive streak. Her concept of ambition or competitiveness I suspect is climbing over people/ throwing them under a bus.
Her concept of ambition or competitiveness I suspect is climbing over people/ throwing them under a bus.
What other concept of competitiveness is there?
What other concept of competitiveness is there?
That's a red flag question right there!
There is a promotion available at work and you and another person are up for it. If your primary MO to you being the one to get it is to shine a light on the other person's failings rather than focussing your efforts on making sure all your own positive attributes are on show, you are one of 'them'. My hunch is Rachel is one too.
There is a promotion available at work and you and another person are up for it. If your primary MO to you being the one to get it is to shine a light on the other person's failings rather than focussing your efforts on making sure all your own positive attributes are on show, you are one of 'them'. My hunch is Rachel is one too.
Seriously? She is in a gameshow, playing a game, trying to win a prize.
Seriously? She is in a gameshow, playing a game, trying to win a prize.
You've clearly not been impacted in your life by a Louise. Once you have, you know the signs.
I suspect it's her middle name.
You've clearly not been impacted in your life by a Louise. Once you have, you know the signs.
Clearly not. At least you seem to understand that you’re projecting massively, and quite probably unfairly, onto Rachel.
Objectively, as in from what you can appreciate beyond the fact she is only on TV, behind an edit, and is playing a role (apart from when she is being interviewed alone which I think are the more revealing moments) - do you think she seems like a person you'd like?
I think I'd like Stephen. He's in the same situation as Rachel (playing a traitor) but instinctively I think he comes over as someone who in real life would be sound. Rachel (to me) not so much. Or even a little bit.
I think Rachel will get voted out regardless of the coin-toss outcome. I don't think Stephen will get to the end. Faraaz doesn't trust him and Jack will go with Faraaz. Can also see them voting out Jade, just to be on the safe side.
Hopefully, they'll vote off James on general principle. Truly the scariest person there: utterly convinced he's correct, gets proven wrong over and over, then just jumps on the next idea with every bit as much certainty. He's this year's Maddy.
You've clearly not been impacted in your life by a Louise.
Ohh I have. Rachel doesn't come across anything as much like a Louise as the Louise I was three months away from marrying when I found out she was shagging our mortgage advisor (and I found out on the day we were meant to be exchanging on our house when the bloke's son came to my house to tell me). 🤣
There’s a fundamental difference between being strategic and persuasive vs being dishonest.
This is a game, where the whole point of being a traitor is to be dishonest. It’s quite possible for someone to have a strong moral compass in real life, and for them to ignore it for the purpose of a game. In fact that’s part of the fun.
Part of the problem with the faithful, IMO, is that they’ve not grasped that fact. They didn’t with Alan Carr, and they don’t seem to have done in this series either.
And yet they voted her person who'd make the best traitor at one point - can't think why they didn't vote her out immediately after that. Even if it were collateral damage, it would have been the smart thing to do.
... you’re projecting massively, and quite probably unfairly ...
This has been the entire gameplan of the faithful since the start as far as I can see, except not onto Rachel, but the rest of their own gang.
I think the difference as a viewer over being a player is that you have the advantage of knowing what 'the act' is. I think it makes it a lot easier to 'appreciate' the underlying personality of the player over and above the character they are playing in the castle. We are also privy to the private interviews. Obviously, we are also clouded by the producer's edit which can skew reality.
The whole point of the academic social experiment the programme was based on was to demonstrate the power of the informed minority over the uninformed majority. To that end keeping the faithful clueless and tilting at windmills is the very point. I've found it equal part frustrating and entertaining watching faithful after faithful make total arses of themselves with their incorrectly placed absolute certainty based on **** all. You'd hope you'd be more measured if you were in there, but they don't appear to be stupid people - perhaps it's just a failing of the human condition.
This is a game, where the whole point of being a traitor is to be dishonest. It’s quite possible for someone to have a strong moral compass in real life, and for them to ignore it for the purpose of a game. In fact that’s part of the fun.
I can't remember what the interview was, or who it was about (great story this!) but google says Marc Guehi at the England WC squad hotel in 2022 - they had Werewolves style contests going on through the time they were in camp, and Guehi struggled because with a traditional Cote Ivoire background, a Father who was Pastor of the church, etc. his culture made being deceptive very hard. We've had a few vicars / priests on so far, they've managed well enough.
As did MG - because he then won the 2024 Traitors in the Euros camp, in his own words because no-one believed he could be anything but trustworthy. Fast learner, clearly.
we are also clouded by the producer's edit which can skew reality.
Edit is one thing, I also wonder at how the producers actually manipulate the game. An obvious way is in the round tables, presumably someone very smart / maciavellian is in Claudia's earpiece telling her when to call time for a vote. A few times someone's brought up something, others have then just started to explore and the Vote is called. Is that to stop the theory evolving? Maybe so that as people vote that the theory is front of mind. The round table rarely if ever goes on to a consensus, or where all debate has been had.
But equally - stopping people talking by bringing-in cameras or calling time to do something; or equally any manipulation of getting people to go into specific rooms to third wheel a conversation that's getting a bit too close.
Random side note from the local Facebook group (which is obviously a beacon of well-informed opinion) - claiming all of the cast are put up in the Marriot near Inverness airport. I knew they used it for the show but to put up all the contestants. Feels like a high-risk strategy when you could put them in different digs all over Inverness. Perhaps the deal is they are confined to their rooms, and they put a security guard in the corridor to stop any middle of the night liaisons.
I know the area around Ardross Castle pretty well as we use it a lot for work but if you went up on a sort of homage to the show, you'd probably be a little disappointed. A lot of the stock B roll of the cars driving them about is filmed miles and miles from the castle and not enroute to any of the challenges. Immediately around the castle you might be forgiven for thinking you were in the Hampshire downs. Most of the challenge locations like Fyrish monument yesterday and Loch Glass that had the coffins in are just around the corner (In Highland terms). The train station they arrive at is 50 miles away and not a stop on anything other than a tourist heritage track up and down the few miles from Aviemore. Afternoon teas on it are nice mind.
The whole point of the academic social experiment the programme was based on was to demonstrate the power of the informed minority over the uninformed majority. To that end keeping the faithful clueless and tilting at windmills is the very point. I've found it equal part frustrating and entertaining watching faithful after faithful make total arses of themselves with their incorrectly placed absolute certainty based on **** all. You'd hope you'd be more measured if you were in there, but they don't appear to be stupid people - perhaps it's just a failing of the human condition.
Agree with all of that. The result is that the show only really has one "joke" (i.e. people groping around in the dark, buying into their own stories, all the while being totally wrong), but it's evidently a good joke.
I also believe that the show's Secret Sauce is actually sleep deprivation. Unfamiliar location, plentiful booze and a heap of stress don't make for a good night's shut-eye, hence lots of TV-friendly Big Emotions.
What makes you think there is plentiful booze? Them being pissed would be a disaster for the game.
A quick search suggests they are strictly limited.
What makes you think there is plentiful booze? Them being pissed would be a disaster for the game.
A quick search suggests they are strictly limited.
Takes surprisingly little to impact the quality of your sleep.
EDIT: Having said that, you've given me a fantastic idea for the show's next iteration: same rules, but every 2nd day, they're on mushrooms!
There's zero chance they got up and down the dam in the times allowed.... Disappointing.
Faraz you cocked that up and fed Jack to the Wolves 🙄
I am so pissed off!
Really thought (editing helped) Stephen was going to stab her in the back
I think Rachel will get voted out regardless of the coin-toss outcome. I don't think Stephen will get to the end. Faraaz doesn't trust him and Jack will go with Faraaz. Can also see them voting out Jade, just to be on the safe side.
Hopefully, they'll vote off James on general principle. Truly the scariest person there: utterly convinced he's correct, gets proven wrong over and over, then just jumps on the next idea with every bit as much certainty. He's this year's Maddy.
WELP. Faraaz, you ****ed up playa. Should have stuck to the plan.
Copy that ! 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Roxy took the reveal quite well, contrary to some of our thoughts above
I'm still undecided as to whether Stephen was very good for splitting the money or stupid!
I'm tending to think it's the former!
Yes, I was impressed that they both kept their word to each other. I would like to think I would do the same but couldn't 100% guarantee that I actually would if faced with the opportunity to keep all the money to myself.
Yes, I was impressed that they both kept their word to each other. I would like to think I would do the same but couldn't 100% guarantee that I actually would if faced with the opportunity to keep all the money to myself.
yep, i was really happy that he did, great that they suck to their pact all the way through, i thought rachel would throw him under the bus towards the end. he basically had a £50,000 decision to make, knowing that if he voted for rachel hed win it all. i wonder if once its all over and he thinks back on it he thinks 'what an idiot, i just gave a stranger £50,000' rather than break my word.'
really enjoyed this series, top tv.
I think at that point you have to have some consideration of life after Traitors. Much as we can say it's just a game, I think Rachel in particular had to consider the point that if she'd snaked out on Stephen at some point walking down the road she's going to encounter someone who doesn't quite get that concept. Stephen too, but he was just utterly charming and would possibly get away with it, but OTOH if he'd snaked on her then he clearly isn't charming.
I felt for Jack but at that point he's an irrelevance, one of them is going through and he's getting nothing. The damage was done in the earlier rounds of the finale. Likewise Faraaz, what a genuine guy and I hope he finds a way to get to make his Hajj trip. Modern British muslim, trip to Hajj first, rest on a flash car, good on you lad (although, I read he's an internal auditor so he's at least 25% ****)
and to all those from early days of the thread that 'have never seen it, but know it's crap'
Wrong, wrong, and so wrong.
yeah i like faraaz. i watched the aftershow jobbie (traitors unleashed?), hes a funny guy and self deprecating with it.
and yes, i felt for jack at the end, he must have assumed he'd got the money and was sharing it with stephen. cruel show really isnt it 😀
I’m always struck how much more intelligent, funny, self-aware & decent (most) people appear to be on the Uncloaked programme. The producers don’t pick idiots to take part even if it feels like it at times.
Interestingly I think that Stephen will now be publicly regarded as being an honest guy while Rachel might be seen as being devious and untrustworthy.
That's certainly my view.
Excellent finale, worthy winners
We did feel if the situation was reversed and Stephen had been on the ropes instead of Rachel, Rachel would have had no issue in voting Stephen in the final vote, taking the whole prize
I’m always struck how much more intelligent, funny, self-aware & decent (most) people appear to be on the Uncloaked programme. The producers don’t pick idiots to take part even if it feels like it at times.
My concern, as a recent Traitors convert, is that they will fall into the usual reality TV mistake and start involving crackpot wannabe celebs for more drama and ratings.
Just seen Faraz on BBC Breakfast, admitted hed been an idiot and the grief his sister had given him 😁😁😁
My concern, as a recent Traitors convert, is that they will fall into the usual reality TV mistake and start involving crackpot wannabe celebs for more drama and ratings.
So far they have done ok. They have tended to go for a decent mix, with quite a few people who have been reasonably (very) successful in life. The only thing which slightly annoys me is the sob story episode at dinner. Everyone seems to need to have a tragic past or a worthy cause to participate. but it doesn’t spoil the show overall. I thought Celebrity Traitors would ruin it but the choices there were pretty inspired. I get the impression the producers know why it succeeds & what they need to do to keep the magic going. Here’s hoping.
Well, I was going to watch it tonight on iPlayer but BBC News has just proudly announced the winner on the radio, so have come here to read the spoilers.
They - the BBC - are like children sometimes with their "LOOK WHAT I MADE!" attitude to popular content even if the correlation is that viewers are (a) pissed off and (b) not actually going to watch the final episode any longer. FFS.
Caught up with it when I got in last night. They played unbelievably well, I too was surprised neither for them through the other under the bus. poor Faraaz was too trusting for his own good, he had it worked out.
Feels like a high-risk strategy when you could put them in different digs all over Inverness. Perhaps the deal is they are confined to their rooms, and they put a security guard in the corridor to stop any middle of the night liaisons.
It’s exactly how they do it, there are former contestants who have talked about it. They are escorted everywhere with security guards separately. How they still manage to stop leaks though is impressive.
What dawned on me during this series is that the winners will be able to bet on themselves, for a little bonus. The media appearances that follow probably generate them so nice extra cash too.
I've a friend that used to work for a big bookmakers and asked him similar. First, insider trading / betting with the privilege of specific knowledge is illegal, so the contestants would be guilty of criminal offences. It's a difficult area, knowing what is specific knowledge, but in simple terms if it's available to the public it's fair game, even if you need special expertise to glean it - so studying horses form, ground conditions, weights, etc.. having a sophisticated method to turn that into information is ok.
Being told a horse is lame and going to be pulled out, would be illegal. The grey area is being tipped off that a horse has been flying in training all week and might be overpriced in the odds..not publicly available but no guarantee either.
Second, betting is highly monitored, so if (extreme to make the point) Jack or Stephen or Rachel walk into a bookies later today to collect a big win it'll be spotted. A small win, possibly not but what's the point, it's still a criminal offence. And a random person with a big win and no other pattern...also looked at plus I assume all are contracted to stay silent or they lose the prize anyway, so tipping your mates off to set up a network of small bets might work but risk-reward is way beyond acceptable for me.
i felt for jack at the end
I found it impossible. Marina Hyde answered his constant questioning 'why am I still here?' with 'coz you're stupid and no threat'
It highlighted the flaw in the format noted above - once faraz had thrown himself out, it was only ever going to be a traitor win; Jack was an NPC
I’m always struck how much more intelligent, funny, self-aware & decent (most) people appear to be on the Uncloaked programme.
I guess part of it is being out of the cauldron. But.....a good few months has passed by the time they appear on uncloaked. Plenty of time for media training (actual media training rather than a one hour course and an ebook! FBI training). If you know you have made a bit of dick of yourself or if you have the potential to monetise your appearance it would make a difference, even if it's just to ensure appearing doesn't have a negative impact when you drop back into your old life.
I suspect some of the last decisions by Stephen and Rachel and their 'persona' on the after show was engineered for life after the game.
I was a naysayer above but admit got sucked in. I'd not have necessarily searched it out but Mrs C had it on and.....you just do....I'm weak! I'm still confused about what I think. All the calling out of random incorrect theories still irked and had a whiff of the school playground about it. Much of it is essentially watching a bunch of adults wandering around some rooms in groups eating and spouting crap - it should not be good TV! But watching it more objectively as a bunch of sheep (not their fault - the premise is they are kept clueless) being herded and outsmarted by people with knowledge....yes it works as a bit of entertainment. I'm not convinced it's not quite cruel on some level, but they know what they are signing up for.
Great TV. I've never enjoyed any other "reality TV", so this is a bit of a first for me. We started with the last Celebrity Traitors, so this is only our second series. One of the few TV shows I can sit down and enjoy with my wife, that has us both laughing, swearing and generally investing in together. I also enjoy the novelty of having to remember to watch a programme at a specific time and know that half the country is doing the same. The shared experience aspect of broadcast TV, and chatting about it with friends and strangers the next day. Something streaming, as good as it is for choice has almost done away with. I know you can stream Traitors after it's been shown, but almost zero chance of avoiding spoilers if you do.
Interestingly I think that Stephen will now be publicly regarded as being an honest guy while Rachel might be seen as being devious and untrustworthy.
That's certainly my view.
Stephen strikes me as being “nice”. Rachel strikes me as being strong. From experience, I know which type of person I’d rather associate and do business with. And it’s not Stephen.
Also, it was Stephen who thought about throwing Rachel under the bus, not the other way round.
I've a friend that used to work for a big bookmakers and asked him similar. First, insider trading / betting with the privilege of specific knowledge is illegal, so the contestants would be guilty of criminal offences.
Indeed it is but they don’t have to personally put the bet on. A trusted friend can do it for them.
There's zero chance they got up and down the dam in the times allowed.... Disappointing.
Yes. I thought the narrow finish inside the deadline was just editing. I would be more convinced if they ever missed a timeout.
But having to get roped up with the safety crew and lowered off the dam can't be a race anyway.
Also, it was Stephen who thought about throwing Rachel under the bus, not the other way round.
He had the opportunity to vote for Rachel at the end and take all the money - but he didn't and opted to share it.
Rachel was EXTREMELY lucky to be in the final let alone come out of it as a winner.
Also, it was Stephen who thought about throwing Rachel under the bus, not the other way round.He had the opportunity to vote for Rachel at the end and take all the money - but he didn't and opted to share it.
Rachel was EXTREMELY lucky to be in the final let alone come out of it as a winner.
In the program afterwards, he admitted that he was tempted to throw her under the bus. She said that she was always going to stick to their pledge.
Indeed it is but they don’t have to personally put the bet on. A trusted friend can do it for them.
Yes, as i said:
And a random person with a big win and no other pattern...also looked at plus I assume all are contracted to stay silent or they lose the prize anyway, so tipping your mates off to set up a network of small bets might work but risk-reward is way beyond acceptable for me.
It might have been possible in the past, where everything was genuinely in books, comms was by telephone and tic-tac signals, etc., but in the computer age, suspicious betting patterns are watched for and spotted. And for a truly rare betting event where the winner is already known well before the event it'll be even more watched.
Lastly - what odds do you reckon? Before the event when no-one's known and just named, 20 odd competitors with an equal chance would all be 20-1 or so. Then it's known the traitors are at a distinct advantage, so as soon as they're picked the odds drop. How much will you need to bet to get close to winning enough to jeopardise losing the 47k or so they won? It would have to be in the thousands, and that's where the bookies spot it and investigate, and would easily spot a trusted friend.
As I said a network of (very) small bets by different people in different bookies in different parts of the country might be less visible but the more people involved the more likely a slip up.
Just not worth the risk
I just googled, on 4th Jan, 3 days after it started Stephen was 8-1, Rachel 4-1
As I said a network of (very) small bets by different people in different bookies in different parts of the country might be less visible but the more people involved the more likely a slip up.
Got you now cheers makes more sense with that detail, ta.