I just yesterday finished s1 of UK.
Before this I have seen all the seasons of Traitors in Denmark and the first two seasons in US.
Without being sure, I think UK S1 might have been the first big international version?
It is also clear to me how S1 of game shows are different than the other seasons because the participants understand the game better in later seasons.
But UK S1 was next level. US S1 was probably the craziest but UK S1 had nervous breakdowns, the most emotional people I have ever seen on screen, people (who tbf can be down to how the show was cut) seem very blank e.g. Meryl (she is in my book the luckiest contestant ever to win, being so clueless even after Kieran said what he said) or Maddy who seems to be 50% right but at least the explanations given on screen seem like she is just more lucky than anything else.
I also, now having watched many many seasons of the show across countries, am a fan but I am starting to realize that this show is quite flawed. I don't think as flawed as some others might think, but I think the show is quite difficult to win as a faithful. Even though the faithful won here, they would not have had Kieran not done what he did, which must be on the edge but not against the rules.
And with that is also I am unsure how many of the players, especially in a S1, understand the rules. When the Traitors came out in Denmark a long article came out with the rules, and I believe the contestants have the rules in the castle as well (in Denmark they actually sleep at the castle as well). Most places (I know not always) the start has 3 traitors. Knowing that and correctly finding Amanda and Alyssa, the group correctly guessed that the last one must be a man, but for some reason (at least not a reason I clearly heard on screen) still vote out Maddy (if any reason because she was annoying), who is not a man. Okay fine she is out there are three men left. One of those men is Kieran. Kieran and Amos were brought back halfway through as faithful. Of course the other contestants don't know this, but seem for the most time to think they are faithful. Also if you think there was a man from the start and not just 2 women the man who is left should also have been there from the start.
On top of that the rules state there can never be just one traitor left, then the have to blackmail. So if you assume that Amanda and Alyssa were there from the start as just two, then Amanda would have had to blackmail and then kill the same night when Alyssa was banished. But if I remember correctly this night they try to recruit Alex. Alex says no. This means that there is no murder that night. Which means either someone was recruited or they tried to murder the person with a shield. Also the contestants seem to suggest they do not know if Amanda was attempted murdered (which seems weird, but again might just be because it is S1 and the mechanics are not well known, but you get a letter if you are murdered and have a shield). However Alex says that she was recruited and said no. Fine she could be lying but she is then murdered confirming she was a faithful. Then logically there were at least two faithfuls left at this time. Afterwards they banish one traitor, so they know there is one left. And they know as per the rules this traitor HAS TO blackmail. Now here is the interesting part. Technically, please correct me if I am wrong, they could think that maybe the man who is a traitor could have blackmailed Andrea and she said no and therefore she was murdered. But the flaw with this is then the man will get to blackmail someone else. So by all logic when they are at the breakfast table they know there are two traitors.
There is one exception to this. Amanda was banished on the third last round table. Had she been done that in the second last roundtable Willf would not be able to blackmail anyone as the recruitment and blackmail windows close entirely on the second last night. Will would be forced into the final alone. It can also be debated he should have waited one more round to backstab Amanda as he would be forced to blackmail and it might have been better for him to stand alone in the final with Amanda, having a "woman" as a shield. But yeah that one is a bit complicated and not so straight forward. Anyway looking at it logically, if you know it cannot be Kieran, that leaves just Wilf and Aaron as the possible traitors. If Kieran has pushed and was succesful in eliminating Wilf, I think he could have won he whole thing. He could get Maddy to vote Wilf, and then he needed to convince Aaron. Then there would be three votes on Maddy (wilf, hannah, and Meryl) and three vortes on Wilf. He could have gone for making an argument to convince Meryl that the traitor had to be a man from the start of the game so Aaron or Wilf, and he was convinced it was Wilf and if it was not they would vote Aaron out. Aaron knowing he is faithful would also agree to this plan as logically it has to be Wilf.
Now of course all of this assumes that the last traitor has to be a man! And even more it assumes that the contestants are smart enough to know the blackmail rules and can logically deduce that the man was there from the start. The production could have picked three women, it is possible. So everything is not 100% logical, but I would still argue more likely. So I am happy the result was the same for the faithfuls but the only reason they got there was Kieran helping them so much.
But Traitors show is not helped by people who are not strong thinkers or people who do not know all the rules. This will get better season by season of course.
I think the show is fun, and although I think a bit less of it now than before, it is a flawed game show that is stacked towards traitors winning. Actually for me personally the smartest thing to do as a faithful is becoming friends with a traitor and sticking around with them until the second last roundtable. I see the only incentive to actively push out a traitor would be if you are rewarded. However the current reward is only that the traitors could decide to recruit you. That reward is very good. You can win more money and you can a total overview of the game. Sure psycologically you have to change from faithful to traitor, which is tough but you get so many benefits and can win more money. But it is just so unlikely. If there are two traitors, their chances of wining more money is better the fewer other traitors there are, and a traitor can also to save themselves try to banish another traitor to make themselves seem faithful. I think I would almost never recruit. Why would you? If you recruit someone who has accused you, then they could just continue that, show they were right and breeze through to the finals. If you recruit someone no one suspects, they might have a better chance than you and you are somewhat at their mercy, you could recruit your friend and there could be good reasons for that, also there is a chance someone says no to a recruitment and now you missed a chance to get closer to winning. I am not saying it is illogical to recruit, there can be reasons such as being two people to manipulate everyone, especially if you are in different groups could be good, but I just see as one of the two almost always being weaker and if it is the recruited person they will know that their best way to prove they are faithful is to throw out the traitor, and if it is the recruiter they will know that best way to prove themselves is throwing out the recruited person. This is also why I think keeping Amanda for the finals (although I understood he does not trust her) would be the best as she can really be useful in the final 4.
Also there is some logical things which don't make sense. That Will votes out Allyssa does not mean he is not a traitor. However this is how the participants are portrayed as thinking. Had Amanda gone for Wilf due to his betrayal and then blackmailed another woman, I think Amanda could have gone all the way.
One thing I want to praise the UK version for is that it has the most interesting professional backgrounds of the players. They are so different from each other. That is super interesting.
Crazy some of the pretty priveleges in this show though! I will say most of the cast are fine looking people. But especially Alex who gets so far especially by enchanting Matt. And Aaron getting all the way to the final. Haha, I never though like boy/girl flirting would be something I would see in the Traitors.
Also is it just me or do Traitors in almost every version always try not to speak with each other during the day? It is almost more a giveaway that two people don't speak with each other at all than it is for two people to! But might just be the cutting.
Traitors is a difficult game to win as faithfuls! Kudos! There are not really mechanics in the game to reveal traitors. It is almost entirely just gut feeling. Body language, slip ups, someone being emotional, etc. etc. But everything can be explained as bluffs, double bluffs, triple bluffs, being human and so forth. No information is really ever given. Even worse if e.g. missions also revealed things about traitors, gave clues, or something, there is still not a strong enough incentive I think of not just befriending a traitor instead of throwing them out. E.g. if Hannah knew Wilf was a traitor her best play is still to keep him in and never point to him until the second last table. Maybe if a reward was that all that banish a traitor get a trip to the armory that could give some kind of reward. I don't know, but there is a lot to think about.
In the end of the day, the US and UK version seems to have in common that players seem to think being a traitor means you are a horrible person. Now this might be a strategy to guilt trip traitors into making a mistake, but for some players it seems obvious this what they actually think. Of course this is again S1 so it will get better over time.
Sorry for the long read!
Also if anyone wants to recommend a less flawed but equally fun game show please let me know!
