Use the code TREE for 51% off World Anvil with the link https://worldanvil.com/?c=mltt
Or else try it out for free!!

Patreon link: https://www.patreon.com/mylittlethoughttree
Buymeacoffee link: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/mltt
Second channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ThoughtlessTree

I’m enjoying this season of the traitors, it’s the best telly I’ve seen all year. They’re absolutely terrible at finding traitors and I think the way that Alan is the most obvious traitor ever but he appears to be so bad at it that they all just write him off as a possibility. I’m absolutely loving this season, it’s just good fun since there’s no real stakes.

My biggest issue with Traitors is how too many people don't stick to their guess two nights in a row. If you're deadset on it one night, I need to hear the precise reason you've pivoted in a mere 24 hours.

I prefer this ‘less serious’ version, in the non celeb one it brings out some of the worst in people which I don’t like. The deceit and manipulation in this version doesn’t land so heavily.

I think its also worth noting how they justify their vote for Niko through spinning it as a compliment. They probably know that there is no logic in voting for him yet they did so anyway, and to make it feel better in their minds they say "you'd make an excellent traitor". They do this several times throughout the show and its also one of those moments that makes my blood boil

10:06 a ham is someone who really plays things up, over emotes. “Hamming things up”.

Jonathan‘s language really betrays him when he gets nervous (best example being his „liar’s truth“ defense of „I didn’t kill Paloma“ when accused of being a traitor), but the faithful are so fixated on non-verbal communication that they’re missing the obvious verbal clues.

Very late to the party so nobody will see this but thought I would share. The thing that gets me about the traitors is that fans think its a genuine strategy game that can be played with logic. It is not! the game has a huge power imbalance in favour of the traitors and there is no viable way to play the game beyond blind luck. The faithful are told to pick a name and they are never provided with any information in relation to this decision.  They will never have any "proof" and if accused there is no way to properly defend yourself or disprove claims. At one point at a round table Stephen basically says this in an around the houses kind of a way. If a faithful happens upon a traitor (which will statistically happen at some point) they can be killed off with no recourse at anypoint.

Thanks so much for the breakdown that I didn't realise that I needed until now. I felt sorry for Niko, since as his job literally involves pranking people, then of course you're going to be an instant suspect. I hope that you check out the Irish version, if you get a chance.

I'm so glad you talked about what an outsider Niko was. To me, that was almost entirely what put him under fire. He's like the luvvy British celebs version of "new money". He's from a new entertainment medium that probably seems weird, garish or tacky to them (even if it's just because it's unknown). He is just not a comfortable addition to the group. It's horrible to say, and it would be nice to imagine that they would all in theory be able to get along fine, but given that the very nature of the game is about suspecting others from day 1, he is already far below them all. The prankster reputation obviously made it worse, but I think he'd already have been in hot water if he was some other type of YouTuber for that reason. Something new and unfamiliar - it feels threatening, and I think there's an assumption that for him to be able to push through and get into their circle, he must also be quite ambitious, while some of them, as hard workers as they may also be, will see their own success and presence there as "natural". And while I know it's really not that deep, the fact that so many of them spelt his name wrong felt like such an unintended kick in the teeth to emphasise the message "we don't know you".

To be completely honest, I don't know that I would have been convinced by his defence. He defends himself very well afterwards on uncloaked, being able to discuss how much of a fan he is of the show, saying something like "every person who does something like this ends up getting banished, in every series, I know because I watched them"
If he had said THAT specifically, I feel like maybe he might have garnered some more positive reactions because it feels reassuringly statistical, when they all have nothing to cling to. But obviously, he was under pressure in the moment, and while he gave a decent defense, it still mostly amounted to "why would I do that when it makes me look suspicious". They view him already as someone who might seek success through less conventional means, so, like you say, the double bluff seems all the more likely. I also think that him being less comfortable, and therefore more formal, makes him seem almost politician-like and slick. Whatsherface (forgot her name already) the 'huge ham', didn't really try with her defense, which made it seem like she was unprepared, which suggests she did not already have a guilty conscience. There's also perhaps the issue of boundaries between genuineness for different types of media roles. Internet influencers have by now garnered reputation for being subtle manipulators, i.e. threading monetisation through their content without declaring it. Not saying Niko does this, I know nothing about the man, but even though say, a talk show host, could also (demonstrably) rely on disingenuousness regularly for their career, it feels like an old battle that people have made peace with, and again, less of an unknown.

Sidenote, I'm surprised youre not familiar with the term 'huge ham'. I think it was actually a pretty good defence on her part, partially because it was so weak, partially because it was self effacing, but again like you say, she had the luxury of being able to entreat those who know her to confirm- which iirc at least one person did.

This is my first series of traitors so a lot of aspects of it are new to me, but as much as they have been quite severely messing up, I do feel like it's hard to imagine doing much better. It's simple fact that they had nearly nothing to work with, and as incorrect and baseless getting rid of Niko was, there was literally no way I can think of that they could have EVER correctly chosen on that day. Yet they had to choose someone. The reasoning was wrong, but the alternative was genuinely no reasoning whatsoever. Like, what could they have done?

Jonathan giving them the run around is pissing me off though. In my mind I'd be able to tell, but I'm probably flattering myself.

Sorry for writing so much, I have no life.

My husband and I struggle to find things we enjoy watching together, and the various forms of the Traitors have been one of the few things we both like.
I appreciated and probably prefer the change from “oh my god I literally need this money to help me in my actual life” to “it’s just a game.”
It was lovely to see them comforting Alan at the very end ❤️
Rather than what we saw happen at the end of series 2 (haven’t watched 3 yet)… (Molly is going to need therapy, I have no doubt)

The bit with the coffins and Claudia saying "the traitors could have put themselves in", reminds me of the Normie edition this year, when the ones on the train came back, and Claudia said that they "could" be a traitor, and the whole group automatically assumed that one of them was.

I was so pleased when Stephen Fry says "maybe we shouldn't talke about it, and just go with our thoughts", I thought that would be a really interesting experiement to try (maybe they'll try it later?!), but then a bit disappointed when they did all talked about it anyway, and made the wrong choice by, in that instance, NOT falling for the "double/triple/quadruple" bluff of JR...

11:20 ish - It takes my partner and I about 90-100 mins to watch each episode, because I'm always pausing it and shouting my opinions at them/the tv...

Anyway, I'll always lap up any Traitors content going! :)

The show is always massively stacked in favour of the traitors. They have all the information.

As a faithful you ONLY know for sure, that you are faithful. You have no idea, who else is a faithful and who are the traitors. ONLY trust yourself.

What was really fun (and frustrating) about this is exactly what you’re talking about. I’ve contemplated becoming a therapist so have done a lot of learning around psychology and kept saying to my family as we were watching things like “Trying to interpret body language is a fool’s game because we’re so bad at lie detection but we think we’re good at it.” And as you’ve pointed out, so many of these people know each other so they’re bringing in already formed biases which cause them to doubt or look for clues in the wrong places. It’s interesting that Joe Marler (who is a bit of an outsider too) was actually good of noticing things, even though he frequently changed at the round table 😅 I thought Stephen Fry would be better, especially when he mentioned Sherlock. I thought he would’ve had the mantra “one twists facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts” but he never did. Although there wasn’t much to go on, except when Claire and Ruth were both going for Jonathan for loosely forming an alliance with them and Nico and then voting Nico. That’s as close to data as they could’ve got really because two people’s word against one whilst not concrete is suspicious but no one picked up on it. Again perhaps because of biases of Jonathan being who he is and Clare and Ruth being women.

I do think think them being celebrities helped a lot this season to make it a fun watch, having that extra layer of 'Life before the castle' helps a lot

This is the best thing on telly right now. I'm addicted.

With Niko performing a dangerous prank in "running for mayor of London", would that technically make him the closest thing to a politician in this season or am I forgetting something?

I truely truely think Stephen Fry was onto something with the idea of having a non-table meeting. They simply just write a name on their own accord instead of swaying.

It may of not worked, but I genuienly think we'd of seen a wider name count and it would of opened up some more honest explanitions why they put the name.

Too many people sheeped through the game and the faithful suffered as a whole.

I do think the BBC had a sigh of relief when they deicided not to go with the non-discussion vote 😂

Nico (new to everyone (but known for his pranks)): definitely a double bluff, Jonathan (known to everyone, known for his controversies): maybe a double bluff but not sure

I wonder which of the UK/US etc iterations will be the first to do a series where they hide the traitors from the viewers too. It's so easy watching at home to say how stupid these faithfuls are, why can't they see. Would love a series to put us in their shoes