I don't mean to be like the person who strikes down other people's theories. Hell,
Michael might be zombie for all I know. I just really don't get the idea of
Steven being a traitor being a valid thing.
When we go back, are we just supposed to know that this character who hasn't been introduced is going around calling
the Mallers or such? The reason he is written in there is to make you think exactly what you're thinking, he's giving you a diversion. Steven is a character we all don't like, but he's been in a total of two scenes over the course of the series. I'm also willing to bet that if Kc did write Steven as the traitor, the massive bulk of us are going to be
very disappointed in it. There's no negative to him. So what if he's the rat? Kick him out and we'll act like nothing happened. He has no importance. Whereas, if it's someone super close to us that many of us like, it'll blindside not only us but the
characters too.
__
Also, I agree with you on
Kelly. She has no reason to be the rat. She was played up as a bad character in the beginning, but ultimately just had a lack of focus. She was also one of the first to start attacking the Mallers in the War, I don't know what that benefits if she had an alliance with them. Yeah, it's be a great cover-up, but that led to the deaths of many Mallers, so they wouldn't be happy regardless.