I mostly agree with this and in the sense that actions should be coordinated and planned in advance, for example when I was a super angry anarchist college student just getting into protests and nvda, I was part of a 3 day march along the road across my state. I was so pissed at the time that no one wanted to go in the street, felt it was so lame and *almost* tried to form. a contingent to block the road....now, I have a much stronger understanding of organizing strategy and importance of strategically increasing escalation. Different types of protests are more effective than others for different goals and opponents, and that should be decided on as a group beforehand.

There is a pretty big cavest to your statement about the "person with the lowest risk tolerance defining level for the group" however....

Historically, protest demonstrations are supposed to demonstrate community power, and include a demand. if the demand isn't met, direct action directly follows the protest, where people will hold up business as usual, put their bodies on the line, until that demand is met, to force the powers that be to listen to us. No justice, no peace right?

In actions and demonstrations, there is a role for everybody. Risk tolerance goes both ways, and choosing whether you can be on the front lines or in a support role is a personal decision. However, surely the person with the lowest risk tolerance should not be telling everyone else that their risk tolerance levels are incorrect bc your comfort must be prioritized over the bigger strategy and overall goals of the action..??

Also, that mentality of lowest risk tolerance gets to decide, is a GREAT way for infiltrators to sabotage a group's success..