GloryDays
Well-known member
It’s a shame that everyone thinks Jaz in a nut job when actually he’s just smart.next week will be interesting. H has signed his own death warrant.....
#teamjaz
It’s a shame that everyone thinks Jaz in a nut job when actually he’s just smart.next week will be interesting. H has signed his own death warrant.....
There's nothing smart about telling everyone privately what your suspicions and then being as quiet as a mouse at the round table. That's just suspicious.It’s a shame that everyone thinks Jaz in a nut job when actually he’s just smart.
#teamjaz
You must be a blinder to watch this programme with ! A pound shop ‘Sherlock Holmes’Should be, but I'm not sure the thickies can work that out.
An example of their ineptitude ….
There's nothing smart about telling everyone privately what your suspicions and then being as quiet as a mouse at the round table. That's just suspicious.
That said, he is the only traitor who says the right things (in amongst the nonsense they are all guilty of saying)
You must be a blinder to watch this programme with ! A pound shop ‘Sherlock Holmes’
I think they've made a mistake recruiting another traitor - it means that the traitors will have to turn on each other at some point - as the faithful now know there's more than one traitor left. The pair of them could have kept going eliminating all the faithful and sharing the pot.
There's nothing smart about telling everyone privately what your suspicions and then being as quiet as a mouse at the round table. That's just suspicious.
I don't remember so many recruitments in the first series, only Kieran. Was there an option to murder or recruit each time then?
Yeah, but when it gets down to four, the one remaining faithful will pick one of the traitors and if the two are on the ball, they'll pile on ensuring that traitor is expelled (you generally have an idea who a person is going to vote for before the slate). They could, of course, all vote for the remaining faithful but if you knew that voting one way would mean sharing the pot with one other person, rather than two, you'd be pretty inclined to do it.They don't have to, they could share the pot between 3 if they want. As Harry said, get one banished (like Jaz or Zach) then murder, and suddenly it's 6 left with 3 being traitors and 3 faithful. They can then basically share it all if they want (3 votes at the banishment being pretty powerful).
Yeah, but when it gets down to four, the one remaining faithful will pick one of the traitors and if the two are on the ball, they'll pile on ensuring that traitor is expelled (you generally have an idea who a person is going to vote for before the slate).
Ross should be smart enough to know that's not what his mum would want - she wants him to bring home the bacon.And if Ross wants to avenge mum, he could actually suggest Harry to the remaining faithful, ensuring Harry's fate.
Yes, from a programme maker’s perspective it couldn’t have worked out better for them, but I agree that it is an advantage that seems unfair.The mum/son thing is a clearly an advantage. They should have been put at risk of being exposed at some point.
They tried to recruit Alex in S1 but she declined so she got offed the next day.I don't remember so many recruitments in the first series, only Kieran. Was there an option to murder or recruit each time then?
There was a partner relationship in the first series, so it was up to the contestants to see if there is any kind of relationship this series. I think the parent sibling connection is a difficult one especially when they have different accents, but Diane was questioned about being Paul's Mum, which was funny because it's obvious she dyes her hair red.The mum/son thing is a clearly an advantage. They should have been put at risk of being exposed at some point.
But if there are only two traitors, they can't do that. If they try to banish each other, they'll both lose out - which is exactly what happened in the first series. Two traitors can control the ending because they can pick off the faithful. They could do with three traitors, that's true, but it will be more tempting to get rid of one.Sure, if 2 of the traitors are united against the 3rd. But that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to recruit.
Ross should be smart enough to know that's not what his mum would want - she wants him to bring home the bacon.
None of this changes the fact that it's an advantage.There was a partner relationship in the first series, so it was up to the contestants to see if there is any kind of relationship this series. I think the parent sibling connection is a difficult one especially when they have different accents, but Diane was questioned about being Paul's Mum, which was funny because it's obvious she dyes her hair red.
But if there are only two traitors, they can't do that. If they try to banish each other, they'll both lose out
which is exactly what happened in the first series. Two traitors can control the ending because they can pick off the faithful. They could do with three traitors, that's true, but it will be more tempting to get rid of one.
Indeed anything can happen.And Ross can bring home the bacon by ganging up with Andrew and eliminating Harry. They then come down to three at the end and the two remaining traitors can eliminate the last remaining faithful and share the prize.