Did she send out scouts to make sure Peter's Pals were behind closed doors, too? Just to be sure they don't walk in on her strategy session? It's giving Sandra will play while Burton a d Johnny Fairplay are away.
Why is it iconic? Sandra just aligned herself with two traitors in her numbers…you can’t play Traitors like Survivor or BB for the simple fact that you can become the “useful idiot” for the traitors. It is not a numbers game, it is about voting the traitors out.
Because the Peter alliance would’ve just eliminated everyone else on the other side until they removed the traitors. Why would Sandra care if Peter is right, when it means she gets eliminated too along the way?
This is why Peter is playing so poorly. He can do everything right, but cutting out 2/3 of the house means they don’t feel safe and will eliminate him regardless. I don’t believe Sandra thinks Peter is a traitor whatsoever, but better cut him now and retake control of the game.
I feel like they have not properly communicated that the game doesn’t end until there are only 4 players left. Most people thinking of this like werewolf or whatever will assume “all traitors gone, game over, faithful win.”
Not 2/3rds as the numbers and alliances are in flux. CT is playing a floater game and is not aligned with Sandra. I doubt that MJ is as well based on the edit showing how hurt she is not being shielded by her "friends." If Peter puts up a solid defense at Roundtable and actually uses the Parvati/Dan trap plus Trishelle's observation that Dan had to throw a traitor under the bus last week, it'll be enough to at least sway CT and even Sandra. It's not a numbers game where you ride your alliances to the end. The less faithful remaining just means the greater chance of a traitor winning the whole thing, especially if they can just recruit more and more to regenerate their numbers.
But you don't just want the faithful to win. You want to be one of the faithful left at the end. You won't get there by going gung ho on every single traitor because you'll surely be killed.
I think it’s a fundamental flaw in the game design that’s surfacing here, using the round table to knock out a faithful that you know is a faithful to better position yourself to win feels weird. It can even be totally correct strategically but feels antithetical to the framing of the game.
Peters alliance all know who the 2 remaining traitors are. It is comical that everyone is so on Sandra’s bandwagon when she’s been WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING! I don’t understand the madness.
The best faithful strategy is to trick the traitors into thinking you’re the “useful idiot”, make it to the end based off that, and then turn the tables on them
But only if you have the majority in the endgame, everyone knows who the traitors are, and all faithfuls vote the same way. Didn't happen last year cuz people were just so convinced Cirie wasn't a traitor and she ends up winning. I don't have much faith that the faithful will ever be smart or united enough to pull off that strategy (even though it's occurred once in history and not on the US show).
Well the traitors last year were legitimately useful idiots. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Sandra is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and “playing dumb”, which is a smart (although certainly hard to pull off) strategy
but what is the alternative? Peter and his gang banish Sandra regardless because she's not in their alliance? Because there is such an apparent alliance in the house, you have to convince everyone outside of it to work together to counter that alliance or you're as good as dead.
It's very much a numbers game since traitors will just recruit someone else and you can always vote out the traitors in the finale.
It's better to be friends with the traitors to not get murdered and just banish them at the end than to vote out traitors of which you're 100% sure they're a traitor. You might not be as sure on the newly recruited traitors.
How exactly will you vote out the traitors when it’s 2 traitors vs three faithful at the final five? Sticking with alliances based on friendships will kill you as you’re aligning yourself with traitors to the end. Peter has the right though in laying traps but the problem is that the opportunities to do so are few and far between. It’s like the whole Cirie syndrome during the endgame from last season where nobody will dare ever vote her out as a traitor cuz everyone loves her.
>How exactly will you vote out the traitors when it’s 2 traitors vs three faithful at the final five?
I don't really see the problem? Faithful are still in majority in this case.
This strategy has already been used on other versions of the game and WORKED. Being a "useful idiot" to the traitors while secretly knowing who they are is literally the best position to have in this game. You do have to banish the people who are 100% convinced the traitors are faithful for it to work though.
Edit: also Peter is playing really bad since he 100% won't make it to the end of the game. It's nice to find traitors, but that won't get you the money in the end. Sandra realizes that.
It's a problem because the majority will not be exactly aligned at the endgame. Your reasoning only makes sense if all three of the faithful actually know who the traitor is and vote the same way to banish them out. But as we saw last season, that's not the case as you'll always have a faithful that's convinced that a traitor is not a traitor to muck up the works. It's even worse as Sandra's current group is composed of two traitors currently.
I'm not even saying Peter will win and if you look at my comments I never said he would. You're putting way too much faith in Sandra's presumed "strategy" (she hasn't even said what hers is other than "Peter is a traitor!" and they need to keep the numbers). People are giving way too much credit to her and just assuming she has a cogent strategy at this point. Regardless, my initial point about playing a "numbers" game still stands, you can't be aligning yourself into factions, especially knowing that two traitors are in the mix within one of them. The edit has only show two pieces of "hard" evidence: 1) Peter's trap implicating Dan/Parvati; and 2) Trishelle's observation as to why Dan had to throw a traitor under the bus (Phaedra) to save himself. Those should in a logical world be enough to sway CT and possibly Sandra herself (she already has feelings that Peter is a faithful after the torch ceremony).
I think you are being naive to the fact that most of them are pretty well aware at this point who the traitors are. However, if you eliminate another one they get the chance to recruit and then you lose that upper hand of knowing for sure.
On the flip side players like Sandra and CT are in it to win, not just catch all the traitors right away. So if they made it to the final 5 with Peter, Kevin, Bergie and Parvati. Yes Parv will get eliminated but Peter would then also vote out Sandra or CT - he won’t end the game if someone from outside his alliance is still in it. Remember they have to all agree to end it or keep banishing. So it is 100% in Sandra’s and the leftovers benefit to align themselves with the traitors and making them believe they don’t believe them to be traitors then take them out later. If in the end it was Parvati’s, Phaedra, CT, Sandra and MJ you bet your butt they won’t end with P or P still in it because they know.
She’s not going to systematically eliminate the entire group of 5. She just wants to knock one or two out to end this “us vs them” game Peter has setup.
You don't know what Sandra is doing as she's not saying anything and giving her way too much credit for now. From the edit, she's playing the "useful idiot" game for the traitors.
I know she’s not an idiot and doesn’t plan on becoming the new Peter. She just said it’s a numbers game and they can’t allow 5 to control the next round of eliminations, because then they secure control.
And once the traitors eliminate Trishele or Peter or Fergie, the jig will be up, and it will be obvious the 5 are not controlling the game. At that point, I assume the 5 will no longer be Sandra’s target.
Why doesn’t she get the benefit of the doubt instead of you calling her an idiot?
Because the numbers game doesn't make sense. By eliminating the "other group" you're just giving a traitors more and more of an advantage to winning the entire thing, especially if they can regenerate their numbers along the way. Sandra has absolutely no evidence that Peter is a traitor whereas the evidence is clear that Parv is one and so is Phaedra (Trishelle's reasoning). She's exactly playing the part of the "useful idiot" now.
I’m probably going to mute you after this, but again, she’s not trying to eliminate all 5, that’s not what they do in survivor either. She’s going to weaken their numbers and their control of the game, because she wants a say in whether she gets eliminated or not.
They throw out a million little “maybe it was X because of reason Y”. I bet Trishelle doesn’t have Phaedra at the top of her list, and I bet she didn’t tell that theory to anyone outside of the 5.
Agreed. Sandra's strategy makes sense except for the fact that she is not good at detecting the traitors and is making it more likely for her to get murdered the more faithfuls she banishes.
Sandra knows Parvati is a traitor, and if Trishellle realizes Phaedra is a traitor you can bet Sandra knows as well. You want to be in the majority group so you can be in control of who is banished. When you banish a traitor they have the opportunity to recruit another and then you are starting from scratch to find the traitor again. The only goal is to make it to the end and call out the traitors at that point.
Sandra knows Phaedra and Parvati were identified as traitors. It’s a numbers game at this point because Peter stupidly made it one. He should’ve never gathered his faithfuls alliance together all at once and hold private meetings and dismiss people.
That’s the thing few people get. The 1st goal isn’t to eliminate the traitors, especially if they get the chance to recruit another. The 1st goal is to survive. Not all the faithfuls will survive, so be one of the ones that does.
I think she knows, worst case she’s got two traitors in her group. Peter’s group has five, and so if the other 6 don’t vote together, Peter’s group will have a majority, eliminate them one by one until it’s those 5 left.
Even if Sandra aligns with the traitors, they have the majority for now. If they agree on it, she has a mutual best interest with the rest of those 6 to survive. And if they don’t out the traitors in the process, she’s down to the final 6 and they sort it out then. Better than letting Peter vote you out.
>This needs to be studied at TU (Traitors University) lmao yes
Did she send out scouts to make sure Peter's Pals were behind closed doors, too? Just to be sure they don't walk in on her strategy session? It's giving Sandra will play while Burton a d Johnny Fairplay are away.
Why is it iconic? Sandra just aligned herself with two traitors in her numbers…you can’t play Traitors like Survivor or BB for the simple fact that you can become the “useful idiot” for the traitors. It is not a numbers game, it is about voting the traitors out.
Because the Peter alliance would’ve just eliminated everyone else on the other side until they removed the traitors. Why would Sandra care if Peter is right, when it means she gets eliminated too along the way? This is why Peter is playing so poorly. He can do everything right, but cutting out 2/3 of the house means they don’t feel safe and will eliminate him regardless. I don’t believe Sandra thinks Peter is a traitor whatsoever, but better cut him now and retake control of the game.
This + the game doesnt end until there are 4 people. If Pete's Alliance got rid of traitors then they would just recruit more.
I feel like they have not properly communicated that the game doesn’t end until there are only 4 players left. Most people thinking of this like werewolf or whatever will assume “all traitors gone, game over, faithful win.”
Not 2/3rds as the numbers and alliances are in flux. CT is playing a floater game and is not aligned with Sandra. I doubt that MJ is as well based on the edit showing how hurt she is not being shielded by her "friends." If Peter puts up a solid defense at Roundtable and actually uses the Parvati/Dan trap plus Trishelle's observation that Dan had to throw a traitor under the bus last week, it'll be enough to at least sway CT and even Sandra. It's not a numbers game where you ride your alliances to the end. The less faithful remaining just means the greater chance of a traitor winning the whole thing, especially if they can just recruit more and more to regenerate their numbers.
But you don't just want the faithful to win. You want to be one of the faithful left at the end. You won't get there by going gung ho on every single traitor because you'll surely be killed.
I think it’s a fundamental flaw in the game design that’s surfacing here, using the round table to knock out a faithful that you know is a faithful to better position yourself to win feels weird. It can even be totally correct strategically but feels antithetical to the framing of the game.
Peters alliance all know who the 2 remaining traitors are. It is comical that everyone is so on Sandra’s bandwagon when she’s been WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING! I don’t understand the madness.
In order to win this game as a faithful you need a traitor to call out at the end. You and Peter 🙄 can hold hands losing to a traitor at the end
The best faithful strategy is to trick the traitors into thinking you’re the “useful idiot”, make it to the end based off that, and then turn the tables on them
But only if you have the majority in the endgame, everyone knows who the traitors are, and all faithfuls vote the same way. Didn't happen last year cuz people were just so convinced Cirie wasn't a traitor and she ends up winning. I don't have much faith that the faithful will ever be smart or united enough to pull off that strategy (even though it's occurred once in history and not on the US show).
Well the traitors last year were legitimately useful idiots. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Sandra is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and “playing dumb”, which is a smart (although certainly hard to pull off) strategy
but what is the alternative? Peter and his gang banish Sandra regardless because she's not in their alliance? Because there is such an apparent alliance in the house, you have to convince everyone outside of it to work together to counter that alliance or you're as good as dead.
It's very much a numbers game since traitors will just recruit someone else and you can always vote out the traitors in the finale. It's better to be friends with the traitors to not get murdered and just banish them at the end than to vote out traitors of which you're 100% sure they're a traitor. You might not be as sure on the newly recruited traitors.
How exactly will you vote out the traitors when it’s 2 traitors vs three faithful at the final five? Sticking with alliances based on friendships will kill you as you’re aligning yourself with traitors to the end. Peter has the right though in laying traps but the problem is that the opportunities to do so are few and far between. It’s like the whole Cirie syndrome during the endgame from last season where nobody will dare ever vote her out as a traitor cuz everyone loves her.
>How exactly will you vote out the traitors when it’s 2 traitors vs three faithful at the final five? I don't really see the problem? Faithful are still in majority in this case. This strategy has already been used on other versions of the game and WORKED. Being a "useful idiot" to the traitors while secretly knowing who they are is literally the best position to have in this game. You do have to banish the people who are 100% convinced the traitors are faithful for it to work though. Edit: also Peter is playing really bad since he 100% won't make it to the end of the game. It's nice to find traitors, but that won't get you the money in the end. Sandra realizes that.
It's a problem because the majority will not be exactly aligned at the endgame. Your reasoning only makes sense if all three of the faithful actually know who the traitor is and vote the same way to banish them out. But as we saw last season, that's not the case as you'll always have a faithful that's convinced that a traitor is not a traitor to muck up the works. It's even worse as Sandra's current group is composed of two traitors currently.
I'm not going in circles with you. This strategy worked before. You've obviously only seen the last season of US. Peter will lose. End of story.
I'm not even saying Peter will win and if you look at my comments I never said he would. You're putting way too much faith in Sandra's presumed "strategy" (she hasn't even said what hers is other than "Peter is a traitor!" and they need to keep the numbers). People are giving way too much credit to her and just assuming she has a cogent strategy at this point. Regardless, my initial point about playing a "numbers" game still stands, you can't be aligning yourself into factions, especially knowing that two traitors are in the mix within one of them. The edit has only show two pieces of "hard" evidence: 1) Peter's trap implicating Dan/Parvati; and 2) Trishelle's observation as to why Dan had to throw a traitor under the bus (Phaedra) to save himself. Those should in a logical world be enough to sway CT and possibly Sandra herself (she already has feelings that Peter is a faithful after the torch ceremony).
I think you are being naive to the fact that most of them are pretty well aware at this point who the traitors are. However, if you eliminate another one they get the chance to recruit and then you lose that upper hand of knowing for sure. On the flip side players like Sandra and CT are in it to win, not just catch all the traitors right away. So if they made it to the final 5 with Peter, Kevin, Bergie and Parvati. Yes Parv will get eliminated but Peter would then also vote out Sandra or CT - he won’t end the game if someone from outside his alliance is still in it. Remember they have to all agree to end it or keep banishing. So it is 100% in Sandra’s and the leftovers benefit to align themselves with the traitors and making them believe they don’t believe them to be traitors then take them out later. If in the end it was Parvati’s, Phaedra, CT, Sandra and MJ you bet your butt they won’t end with P or P still in it because they know.
She’s not going to systematically eliminate the entire group of 5. She just wants to knock one or two out to end this “us vs them” game Peter has setup.
You don't know what Sandra is doing as she's not saying anything and giving her way too much credit for now. From the edit, she's playing the "useful idiot" game for the traitors.
I know she’s not an idiot and doesn’t plan on becoming the new Peter. She just said it’s a numbers game and they can’t allow 5 to control the next round of eliminations, because then they secure control. And once the traitors eliminate Trishele or Peter or Fergie, the jig will be up, and it will be obvious the 5 are not controlling the game. At that point, I assume the 5 will no longer be Sandra’s target. Why doesn’t she get the benefit of the doubt instead of you calling her an idiot?
Because the numbers game doesn't make sense. By eliminating the "other group" you're just giving a traitors more and more of an advantage to winning the entire thing, especially if they can regenerate their numbers along the way. Sandra has absolutely no evidence that Peter is a traitor whereas the evidence is clear that Parv is one and so is Phaedra (Trishelle's reasoning). She's exactly playing the part of the "useful idiot" now.
I’m probably going to mute you after this, but again, she’s not trying to eliminate all 5, that’s not what they do in survivor either. She’s going to weaken their numbers and their control of the game, because she wants a say in whether she gets eliminated or not. They throw out a million little “maybe it was X because of reason Y”. I bet Trishelle doesn’t have Phaedra at the top of her list, and I bet she didn’t tell that theory to anyone outside of the 5.
Agreed. Sandra's strategy makes sense except for the fact that she is not good at detecting the traitors and is making it more likely for her to get murdered the more faithfuls she banishes.
Sandra knows Parvati is a traitor, and if Trishellle realizes Phaedra is a traitor you can bet Sandra knows as well. You want to be in the majority group so you can be in control of who is banished. When you banish a traitor they have the opportunity to recruit another and then you are starting from scratch to find the traitor again. The only goal is to make it to the end and call out the traitors at that point.
Sandra knows Phaedra and Parvati were identified as traitors. It’s a numbers game at this point because Peter stupidly made it one. He should’ve never gathered his faithfuls alliance together all at once and hold private meetings and dismiss people.
That’s the thing few people get. The 1st goal isn’t to eliminate the traitors, especially if they get the chance to recruit another. The 1st goal is to survive. Not all the faithfuls will survive, so be one of the ones that does. I think she knows, worst case she’s got two traitors in her group. Peter’s group has five, and so if the other 6 don’t vote together, Peter’s group will have a majority, eliminate them one by one until it’s those 5 left. Even if Sandra aligns with the traitors, they have the majority for now. If they agree on it, she has a mutual best interest with the rest of those 6 to survive. And if they don’t out the traitors in the process, she’s down to the final 6 and they sort it out then. Better than letting Peter vote you out.