This zero-option feature is often hidden deliberately or buried by confusion. However, there are lots of dead give-aways:
 

•  no choice of time

Example: tight and precise schedules ("Muster is at 3:05 sharp!")
• no choice of appearance

Example:  uniforms

• no choice of source

Example: the one and only Guru has said it all. It's insane to look at anything else.

• forced choice of a symbol

Example: other symbols are those of the 'enemies'!
•  no choice of space

Example: monasteries
•  no choice of "good and bad"

Example: 'enemies' and 'salvators' have been 'preselected' and one should trust 'their' judgements.

"No choice" situations brought about through the use of  words (semantics) are a class all in itself. Here are some of many examples:
 

• general identifications using unspecified subjects or objects:  "everybody, "we", "all", .
•  the usage of the verb "to be" to uncritically equate two things that are different: "he _is_"; "they are...";
• unlimited time/space specifications:   "always", "eternity", "never",...
• using paradoxical or contradictionary constructs without  warning or proper awareness: "all is one"...
• formulating statements as _suggestions_, especially using the pronouns "we"  and you: "We are easily falling back into old habits.", "You want xxx."
• throwing in assertions of correctness and pseudo-questions to produce formal agreements or disagreements: "right?", "do you see this now?", "do you follow me?"
• The Supertrap (all of above sub traps combined):
  "everybody always wants ..."; "we are all one", "you can  never do this without...";   "you'll fry there in eternity."...

It may seem that it would be impossible to avoid some structures used in traps altogether, especially the 'language constructs'.  For example, it makes good sense to expect punctuality for a meeting, thus restricting 'time' for other parties.

The purpose of the list above is to find recurring and compounding indicators that, taken together, expose the suppressive structure of the world-saving person or organizations.

If there are only some of the indicators present in the investigated group, it would be, of course, a good idea to work on resolving or attenuating the suppressive features rather than doing away with the entire structure as a whole.

Last, not least, the list above can also be taken as a 'check-sheet' in cleaning out one's own dependencies on prior personal or group agreements that may have been of a suppressive nature.

And, as always, don't be so serious ;-)