#anarchist analysis

[gothamspring]

this is a crazy thing to have lonnie say when

no company based on wage labor is 'ethical' for a socialist, it'd have to be a co-op. and even then im not sure an anarchist would like a conglomerate born out of late stage capitalism.

hasn't wayne enterprises sold ships and jets to the us military before? what I'm not sure about is when in canon this was stated, and if it was before lonnie's creation. im calling for the community's help with this one.

i dunno why they try so hard to have lonnie like bruce. in what world does an anarchist think a CEO's conglomerate is ethical. i know im nitpicking, but i can't stop thinking about the cop out this is, because here a business is considered 'ethical' because of how it is run, instead of considering the structure of capitalism as unethical in itself. anarchism has never been about running the system ethically from the inside, it's been about dismantling it entirely. how did grant miss that.

in conclusion:

[dailyanarchistposts]

You and your friends already compose an informal organizational structure capable of tremendous achievements. Here’s the theory to go with that practice.

You will need ( tools or supplies ):

A circle of friends

Trust

Consensus

Secrecy

A good idea

Plans for different scenarios

Structures to respond to unexpected scenarios

A little courage (may be optional, but should be at hand just in case)

Action!

Subsequent discussion

Step 1

Chances are, even if you have never been involved in direct action before, even if this is the first radical website you have ever encountered, that you are already part of an affinity group—the structure proven most effective for guerrilla activities of all kinds. An affinity group is a circle of friends who, knowing each other’s strengths, weaknesses, and backgrounds, and having already established a common language and healthy internal dynamics, set out to accomplish a goal or series of goals.

An affinity group is not a permanent arrangement, but a structure of convenience, ever mutable, assembled from the pool of interested and trusted people for the duration of a given project. Once assembled, this group may choose to be “closed,” if security dictates: that is, whatever goes on within the group is never spoken of outside it, even after all its activities are long completed. A particular team can act together over and over as an affinity group, but the members can also participate in other affinity groups, break up into smaller affinity groups, and act outside the affinity group structure.

The size of an affinity group can range from two to, say, fifteen individuals, depending on the action in question; but no group should be so numerous that an informal conversation about pressing matters is impossible. You can always split up into two or more groups, if there are enough of you. In actions that require driving, the easiest system is to have one affinity group to each vehicle.

Affinity groups can be practically invincible. They cannot be infiltrated, because all members share history and intimacy with each other, and no one outside the group need be informed of their plans or activities. They are more efficient than the most professional military force: they are free to adapt to any situation; they need not pass their decisions through any complicated process of ratification; all individuals can act and react instantly without waiting for orders, yet with a clear idea of what to expect from one another. The mutual admiration and inspiration on which they are founded make them very difficult to demoralize. In stark contrast to capitalist, fascist, and communist structures, they function without any need for hierarchy or coercion: participation in an affinity group can be fun as well as effective. Most important of all, they are motivated by shared desire and loyalty, rather than profit, duty, or any other compensation or abstraction: small wonder whole squads of riot police have been held at bay by small affinity groups armed with only the tear gas canisters shot at them.

Affinity groups operate on the consensus model: decisions are made collectively, based on the needs and desires of every individual involved. Democratic votes, in which the majority get their way and the minority must hold their tongues, are anathema to affinity groups: if a group is to function smoothly and hold together, every individual involved must be satisfied. In advance of any action, the members of a group establish together what their personal and collective goals are, what their readiness for risk is (as individuals and as a group), and what their expectations of each other are. These matters determined, they formulate a plan.

Since action situations are always unpredictable and plans rarely come off as anticipated, an affinity group usually has a dual approach to preparing for these. On the one hand, plans are made for different scenarios: if A happens, we’ll inform each other by X means and switch to plan B; if X means of communication is impossible, we’ll reconvene at site Z at Q o’clock. On the other hand, structures are put in place that will be useful even if what happens resembles none of the imagined scenarios: internal roles are divided up, communication systems (such as two-way radios, or coded phrases for conveying secret information or instructions aloud) are established, general strategies (for maintaining composure, keeping sight of one another in confusing environments, or blocking police charges, to name some examples) are prepared, emergency escape routes are charted, legal support is readied in case anyone gets arrested. After an action, a shrewd affinity group will meet (again, if necessary, in a secure location) to discuss what went well, what could have gone better, and what comes next.

An affinity group answers to itself alone—this is one of its great strengths. Affinity groups are not burdened by the procedural protocol of other organizations, the difficulties of reaching accord among strangers or larger numbers of people, or the limitations of answering to a body not immediately involved in the action. At the same time, just as the members of an affinity group strive for consensus with each other, each affinity group should strive for a similarly considerate relationship with other individuals and groups—or, at the very least, to complement others’ approaches wherever possible, even if these others do not recognize the value of their contribution. People should be thrilled about the participation or intervention of affinity groups, not resent or fear them; they should come to recognize the value of the affinity group model, and so come to apply it themselves, from seeing it succeed and from benefiting from that success.

An affinity group can work together with other affinity groups, in what is sometimes called a cluster. The cluster formation enables a larger number of individuals to act with the same advantages a single affinity group has. If speed or secrecy is called for, representatives of each group can meet ahead of time, rather than the entirety of all groups; if coordination is of the essence, the groups or representatives can arrange methods for communicating through the heat of the action. Over years of collaborating together, different affinity groups can come to know each other as well as they know themselves, and become accordingly more comfortable and capable together.

When several clusters of affinity groups need to coordinate especially massive actions—for a big demonstration, for example—they can hold a spokescouncil meeting. In this author’s humble experience, the most effective, constructive spokescouncils are those that limit themselves to providing a forum in which different affinity groups and clusters can inform one another (to whatever extent is wise) of their intentions, rather than seeking to direct activity or dictate principles for all. Such an unwieldy format is ill-suited to lengthy discussion, let alone debate; and whatever decisions are made, or limitations imposed, by such a spokescouncil will inevitably fail to represent the wishes of all involved. The independence and spontaneity that decentralization provides are our greatest advantages in combat with an enemy that has all the other advantages, anyway—why sacrifice these?

The affinity group is not only a vehicle for changing the world—like any good anarchist practice, it is also a model for alternative worlds, and a seed from which such worlds can grow. In an anarchist economy, decisions are not made by boards of directors, nor tasks carried out by masses of worker drones: affinity groups decide and act together. Indeed, the affinity group/cluster/spokescouncil model is simply another incarnation of the communes and workers’ councils that formed the backbone of earlier successful (however short-lived) anarchist revolutions.

Not only is the affinity group the best format for getting things done, it’s practically essential. You should always attend any event that might prove exciting in an affinity group—not to mention the ones that won’t be otherwise! Without a structure that encourages ideas to flow into action, without friends with whom to brainstorm and barnstorm and build up momentum, you are paralyzed, cut off from much of your own potential; with them, you are multiplied by ten, or ten thousand! “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world,” as Margaret Mead wrote: “it’s the only thing that ever has.” She was referring, whether she knew the jargon or not, to affinity groups. If every individual in every action against the state and status quo participated as part of a tight-knit, dedicated affinity group, this revolution would be over in a few short years.

You don’t need to find a revolutionary organization to join to get active—you and your friends already comprise one! Together, you can change the world. Stop wondering what’s going to happen, or why nothing’s happening, and start deciding what will happen. Don’t just show up at the next demonstration, protest, punk show, traffic jam, or day at work in passive spectator mode, waiting to be told what to do. Get in the habit of trading crazy ideas about what should happen at these events—and of making those ideas reality!

An affinity group could be a sewing circle, a bicycle maintenance collective, or a traveling clown troupe; it could come together for the purpose of starting a local chapter of Food Not Bombs, discovering how to turn a bicycle into a record player, or forcing a multinational corporation out of business through a carefully orchestrated program of sabotage. Affinity groups have planted and defended community gardens, built and burned down and squatted buildings, organized neighborhood childcare programs and wildcat strikes; individual affinity groups routinely initiate revolutions in the visual arts and popular music. Your favorite band—they were an affinity group. It was an affinity group that invented the airplane. Another, composed of disgruntled Nietzsche enthusiasts, nearly succeeded in assassinating Adolph Hitler during the Second World War. One set up this website.

Step 2

For affinity groups and larger structures similarly based on consensus and cooperation to function, it is essential that everyone involved be able to rely on each other to come through on their commitments. When a plan is agreed upon, each individual in a group and each group in a cluster should choose one or more critical aspects of the preparation and execution of the plan and offer to bottomline them. Bottomlining the supplying of a resource or the completion of a project means guaranteeing that it will be accomplished somehow, no matter what. If you’re operating the legal hotline for your group during a demonstration, you owe it to them to handle it even if you get sick; if your group promises to provide the banners for an action, make sure they’re ready, even if that means staying up all night the night before because the rest of your affinity group never showed up. Over time you’ll learn how to handle crises, and who can be counted on in them—just as others will learn how much they can count on you.

Step 3

Although one of the rules of thumb for affinity groups is that they should not be so large as to need formal structures for discussions, larger meetings—between clusters of affinity groups, for example—may require them. Be warned: using such protocol unnecessarily will bog down discussions and alienate participants, and can even foster needless antagonism and drama. On the other hand, if an assembly shares good faith in a given approach and works out its details together, such structures can make group decision-making quicker, easier, and more responsive to the needs and interests of everyone involved. No system is better than the people who participate in it; make sure in advance that everyone is comfortable with the format you use.

In one common format, the discussion goes around a circle, each person taking a turn to speak. In another, suited better to larger gatherings, the group begins by agreeing on a facilitator, an individual who will help keep the discussion constructive and on topic. Another individual volunteers to “take stack,” keeping track of the order in which people raise their hands to speak; if people feel it is important to make sure different demographics represented in the group get equal time speaking, this person can take a separate stack for each, and alternate between them. Next, individuals propose items for the agenda of the discussion, then come to consensus on an order for these items and, if time is pressing, a time limit for the discussion of each. During the discussion process, individuals can ask to respond directly to questions, so the group doesn’t have to wait until the stack comes around to them to hear their response. Individuals can also make comments on the process of the discussion, urging people to focus when they are getting distracted, or proposing a break so people can stretch their legs or discuss matters in smaller groups. When it’s time to make a decision on an issue, individuals make proposals, propose amendments, and then address concerns until the group reaches consensus or the closest thing to it.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"It is important from the outset to make some distinction between the State’s prison system, or police or military forces, and the individuals who serve in them, in describing them as purposeful violent institutions. It is probably fair to say that most men (and women, too, in this age of ‘equal rights’) who are recruited into one of these services are not doing so in order to be able to kill, or even to use violence. They are enticed by the financial benefits and promise of variety, adventure and education opportunities, and by the culturally encouraged image of ‘serving one’s country.’ That is how the State wants and needs it to be. It is not coincidental, either, of course, that those who do the front-line work — the real dirty work — in these professions are recruited predominantly from the lower socio-economic groups, where the lack of other educational, work and income opportunities make these enticements most salient and attractive. The fact that these people will be used by the State to carry out its wars against members of their own social groups at home and abroad is not part of their consciousness or service training. ...

While there are many differences between military training and the training received by police and prison guards, there are also many similarities (such as regular interforce shooting competitions), because all services must learn to automatically resort to violence under certain conditions.

Today we are witnessing a simultaneous build-up of military capability and threats, along with an expansion of the tools and use of internal repression. This is a result of the increasing material gap between the haves and have-nots, within societies and on an international level, even while the foundations of capitalism are disintegrating in the lace of growing competition for depleting resources and cheap labour, and increasing international political consciousness...

It is not surprising, then, in this climate of increasing social unrest, that prisons are being used more, new prisons are being built, and the violent and repressive measures that operate inside prisons are being extended. In Canada, a few examples are the construction of additional Special Handling Units (super-maximum segregation), installation of more and more draconian security equipment, searching and electronic surveillance of visitors, and increased power of the Parole Board to indefinitely delay (justifiable) release. The rising suicide rate in prisons is just one attestation to the increasing physical and psychological brutality (and futility) of imprisonment.

…

And who are prisons for? They are for those who learn only too well the meaning and power of ‘success’ in this society, and who dare to use the same tactics of intimidation, violence and lack of concern for others to achieve it as do the political and economic elite, but are without access to their legalised means... for those who can’t afford the cost of legal protection... for those who dare to be poor and who refuse to live gratefully and passively on meagre handouts... for those who are born into a social-economic position which deprives them of the education and skills necessary to earn an ‘honest’ living and who dare to use other means to seek escape from their demeaning poverty... for Native people, whose dignified way of life has been stripped away by the white man and replaced with the dehumanising and deadly life of alcohol... for women who refuse any longer to be subjected to routine beatings from a man and who dare to fight back... for women whose socialised and economic dependency on men, and their fear of them, draws them into criminal complicity... for those who, without the cover of domestic or legal protection, dare to act out the sexual violence towards women and children that is glorified in our culture every day... for those who refuse to learn to kill and be the cannon fodder for wars that are fought to protect the interests of the political and economic elite... for those whose political awareness dares them to challenge and defy the political and economic structures that provide the basis for nuclear weapons and all of the other essential, immoral and oppressive elements of militarism..."

- Helen Durie, unpublished paper, quoted at length by Claire Culhane, "Prisons: 1984 and After," in 1984 And After. Edited by Marsha Hewitt and Dimitros I. Roussopoulos. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1984. p. 77-78

[screaming-in-the-corner]

Something you need to remember is that journalistic photographers are still artists at heart. When you are providing a source of information that is to be seen as "the truth" you are going to frame things to look a certain way.

You will publish the ones that look like what you want. The framing of Luigi Mangione's transportation is incredibly evocative of paintings of Jesus being arrested. It also (not so) coincidentally is often the framing of a hero being captured for the greater good.

This is ON PURPOSE. Do not discredit the artist by calling it a mistake. This was on purpose. The artist supports him and is framing him as a hero.

No matter how much corporate news may attempt to drown out the support for Mangione, artists always have the ear of the people. A picture is worth a thousand words, isn't it?

[anarchistfrogposting]

There’s this odd cognitive dissonance in progressive liberal thought where they’re all too willing to agree that the death of any powerful bad actors in history was necessary and good, but as soon as it comes to powerful bad actors in the present they’re all handwringing and sympathy. Because somehow (and nobody can say quite how) fascism will inevitably be defeated by praying to the neoliberal phantoms and calling it a day. Because more deaths in poverty every year -unassuaged by their paternalistic philanthropy- are perfectly fine, but as soon as it comes to the guys that want to turn the death knob into hyperdrive you just have to kind of hope they don’t win rather than, idk, actually doing something serious about them.

[felicitywilds]

been seein a few popular posts about what could Happen in season 3 that i think are kind of missing the mark a bit when it comes to crowley and aziraphale’s characters and both of their approaches to their relationship? so heres my take

aziraphale is a fighter: all throughout the book and season 1, he’s done his best to fight for what he thinks is right. the fatal flaw in this position is that he only ever does it within the confines of his faith and position as an angel: protesting punishing job until God’s Orders are cited; excusing his eating habits to gabriel by saying it helps him ‘blend in’ on earth; even after an entire day of listing things he wouldn’t be able to enjoy on earth anymore, crowley was only able to convince aziraphale to help him raise the antichrist by framing it as ‘thwarting wiles’ (ie. doing his job). aziraphale has always had a lot of conflict with how his and heaven’s ideals align-- this is why aziraphale went to heaven, so he could make the rules he’s so hesitant to break work for him instead of against him.

crowley on the other hand, is a flier: at the slightest sign of trouble he can’t fix, he flees. no, he does not want to dismantle the systems of heaven and hell, he wants to run away forever and never think about them again! he’s canonically tried to do this at least four times! but the fatal flaw in this position is that it means he sees everything he’s built and collected in 6000 years as disposable, which is not unlike how heaven and hell also think about the earth. he’s built a fragile, peaceful existence for himself, but is willing to run away and dump it all the second its peace and fragility is threatened by something he can’t control.

understanding both of these attitudes makes the middle ground where they realize their mistakes and come together again painfully obvious (imo): its earth! literally the ground in the middle between heaven and hell. crowley and aziraphale both already know that the other is worth protecting-- aziraphale wants to go to heaven so being together won’t be against the rules, and crowley wants to run away so heaven and hell can’t destroy them for being together-- so the revelation that needs to be reached in season 3 is that their lives and their history and their home is worth protecting too. beelzebub and gabriel had ‘heaven/hell is wherever you are’, but that kind of attitude (even ‘to the world’/they are each others world) doesn’t work for crowley and aziraphale because they spent 6000 years building something that makes simply being together synonymous with being on earth.

after all, the Really Big One is going to be all of us vs. all of them-- heaven and hell against all of humanity. when crowley and aziraphale have this exchange in the book and season 1, i fully believe that both them assume that when they say “us”, it means heaven and hell-- even after everything that happened, they’re still aligning themselves against the earth and the history they have there. which is why, after all their wonderful and inevitable character development in season 3, they’re going to realize that “us” actually means humanity.

[vampirepuppyboyfag]

relationship anarchy can be so difficult in regards to understanding others because i just don't understand their need to create a hierarchy of relationships solely dependent on the type of relationship (i.e. romantic, platonic, hookups, partners, friends, ect.)

being on the aroace spectrum also factors into this as well, because everyone seems to tell me that the reason i don't understand relationship hierarchies is because i don't feel sexual attraction so haven't experienced that form of connection (which feels vaguely aphobic tbh)

i love everyone i care about equally, just because its different types of love doesn't make it any less important

[mylimoji]

weird to find good lithuanian videos about israel. wish they were normal about rusukr war. or any other issue 💀

[chainsawlady]

anarcha feminism was formulated by weaving together feminism with anarchist principles. queer anarchism was an expansion of, and further development on, anarcha feminism that integrated queer theory.

we want to do something similar with neurodivergency and plurality, ie weaving together neurodivergency and anarchist principles to create a neurodivergent centric anarchism and then further developing on it with plural positivity and a synthesis with queer anarchism to reach an ultimate goal of plural anarchism

however we have no idea of where to begin. is there even a base layer of positive, radical neurodivergent theory to spring off of? -Evi

[indigosfindings]

always thinking about a video i saw years ago arguing that professional film critics are More Correct than the layperson because they're More Objective, and the example given was that a Professional might remark on things like contrast/affinity. the intended takeaway was that critics base their observations on Objective And Quantifiable Facts, unlike puerile commoners (whose opinions have nothing to do with the contents of the movie)

and like. there are a lot of things one could say about this, but what i keep thinking of is the sheer flimsiness of the argument. remarking on contrast is in fact not a qualitative observation! noting whether a shot is high-contrast says literally nothing about your opinion on it!! as soon as you tack on "...and that's a good thing," you're making a subjective statement! what function is served by claiming that certain opinions are ~Objective~, other than defending the idea of a Superior Intelligent Elite that the Uneducated Masses should look to for The Correct Opinions like a dog begging for table scraps

[gothamspring]

Batman: Ego is such a beautifully written comic but it's conclusion still upsets me so much. i could rant about how the whole "killing the joker is not the answer" is rooted on the false reality of social peace and while bruce wants to stand up for the most vulnerable groups in gotham he still lacks full understanding of their situation. but that's a post for another day.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Translator's note: My translation of E. Armand’s “Mini-Manual” was a fairly early effort, and I’ve been meaning to get a revised translation posted for some time now. I originally tackled the sections that had not been published by Larry Gambone much more out of curiosity than deep interest. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve done a number of translations of Armand’s work without quite convincing myself of his importance. But, having finally dipped into his Individualist Anarchist Initiation, and finding it extremely interesting, I decided it was time to take a few hours to work over the “Mini-Manual.” There are a couple of real awful errors fixed, and I think the article now more closely reflects the approach and language of Armand’s more developed work.

I

To be an anarchist is to deny authority and reject its economic corollary: exploitation—and to reject it in every domain of human activity. The anarchist wishes to live without gods or masters; without bosses or directors; a-legal, without laws and without prejudices; amoral, without obligations and without collective morality. He wants to live freely, to live his own idea of life. In his heart of hearts, he is always asocial, insubordinate, an outsider, marginal, an exception, a misfit. And obliged as he is to live in a society the constitution of which is repugnant to his temperament, he dwells there as a foreigner. If he makes unavoidable concessions to his environment—always with the intention of taking them back—in order to avoid risking or sacrificing his life foolishly or uselessly, it is because he considers these concessions weapons of personal defense in the struggle for existence. The anarchist wishes to live his life, as much as possible—morally, intellectually, and economically—without concerning himself with the rest of the world, exploiters or exploited, without wanting to dominate or to exploit others, but ready to respond by all means against whomever would interfere in his life or would prevent him from expressing his thought by the pen or by speech.

The anarchist’s enemies are the State and all its institutions, which tend to maintain or to perpetuate its stranglehold on the individual. There is no possibility of conciliation between the anarchist and any form whatever of society resting on authority, whether it emanates from an autocrat, from an aristocracy, or from a democracy. No common ground is possible between the anarchist and any environment regulated by the decisions of a majority or the wishes of an elite. The anarchist combats, for the same reasons, the teaching furnished by the State and that dispensed by the Church. He is the adversary of monopolies and of privileges, whether they are of the intellectual, moral or economic order. In a word, he is the irreconcilable antagonist of every regime, of every social system, of every state of things that involves the domination of other men or the environment over the individual, and of the exploitation of the individual by another or by the group.

The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, or opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being. It is proper first to rid brains of preconceived ideas, to put at liberty temperaments enchained by fear, to give rise to mindsets free from popular opinion and social conventions; it is thus that the anarchist will push all comers to go along with him to rebel practically against the determinism of the social environment, to affirm themselves individually, to sculpt their internal image, to render themselves, as much as possible, independent of the moral, intellectual and economic environment. He will urge the ignorant to instruct themselves, the nonchalant to react, the feeble to become strong, the bent to straighten. He will push the poorly endowed and less apt to draw from themselves all the resources they can and not to rely on others.

In these regards, an abyss separates anarchism from all forms of socialism, including syndicalism.

The anarchist places at the base of all his conceptions of life: the individual act. And that is why he willingly calls himself anarchist-individualist.

He does not believe that the evils men suffer come exclusively from capitalism or from private property. He believes that they are due above all to the defective mentality of men, taken as a bloc. There are only masters because there are slaves and the gods only remain because the faithful kneel. The individualist anarchist has little interest in a violent revolution, aiming for a transformation of the mode of distribution of products in the collectivist or communist sense, which would hardly bring about a change in the general mentality and which would not bring about the emancipation of the individual being at all. In a communist regime the individual would be as subordinate as he is presently to the good will of those surrounding him: he would find himself as poor, as miserable as he is now; instead of being under the thumb of the small capitalist minority of the present, he would be dominated by the whole of the economy. Nothing would properly belong to him. He would be a producer or a consumer, put a little or take a bit from the communal heap, but he would never be autonomous.

[transxfiles]

listen alright you just gotta have that 1 interesting person in your life who you never really directly cross paths with but who is still a part of your life via proximity and who you get really excited about seeing from a distance. it's enriching. it makes life a little more magical. like something out of an art film or a children's book.

[depvotee]

youre abt to see me go bananas this year, on God you're gonna

[xx-cringe-factory-xx]

OMG saw your last two asks and yep that sounds like my oc!! I really like your analysis and it is giving me inspiration as to where i'll take this story (BUT... i havent actually READ homestuck in a hot minute/last five-ish years so i need to scourge the wiki and comic for worldbuilding shenanigans). the contributor of expression can create pocket dimensions.. interesting 👀 /pos As per the pre-scratch team, I'm cool with the analysis being somewhat "inaccurate" as homestuck is complex and exploring multiple classpects, esp fanon combined, is challenging! So feel free to take your time on this one, you can do whatever you want as long as you feel its fun and comfortable: Pre-scratch team (my post scratch canon classpects still in the works but im thinking of making the session doomed + chaotic so expect maybe a thief, witch, rogue etc - just classpects i havent done yet ;D ) : 1.) Mage of Time / Combined Classpect: Victim of Neuron (Mage of Time + Heir of Mind) 2.) Knight of Space / Combined Classpect: Contributor of Expression 3.) Maid of Life / [not sure yet, but likely] Combined Classpect: Artist of Recovery (Maid of Life + Sylph of Heart) 4.) Heir of Heart / [not sure yet, likely but needs more confirmation] Combined Classpect: Suitor of Loathing (Heir of Heart + Witch of Rage) 5.) Page of Light / Combined Classpect: Anarchist of Prosperity (Page of Light + Rogue of Hope) I apologize for this is a long message. Take your time and tackle this however way you like! Thank you again ☀️ - DoH anon

hgsfgdkvsdnk SO EXCITED FOR MY FIRST SESSION ANALYsIS Hbafnafa

if you want individual analyses for any of the classpects i haven't already done pleassee ask <333

5 playersss

Victim of Neuron

Contributor of Expression

Artist of Recovery

Suitor of Loathing

Anarchist of Prosperity

Yoo! you have the two big important aspects >:3 space and time

contributor will def be the one to breed genesis frog when/ if they get to that.

when it comes to fighting you strongest players would be your contributor and your suitor. weakest in a fight would be your Artist.

while you team may not be the best in a fight but at least they'll get along (for the most part) there might be a couple small fights and certain players might especially dislike each other.

honestly you're players seem pretty well suited for their jobs, as long as nothing get's in their way or if they dont end up fighting over something I think their session would be successful w/o any outside interferance (which seeing they're prescratch, there prolly would be lmaoo )

SO SORRY THIS TOOK SO LONG IVE HAD SCHOOL AND OTHER ISSUES COME UP SO SO SORRY<3333

[depressedtheatrekiddo]

Me thinks Jason Todd doesn't believe in the State nor likes it ergo he should be an anarchist xx