When you are making a decision through the theory, you should think if it’s out of context by the integrating of the information of the existence of other players who influence the context, and create the transformation D. T. -> G. T. , because then, all the calculations with the initialone, collapse, because they have no foundations.
So if you give a deadline for the existence of a choice past the deadline in the second context, in actual fact you have created a trick with zero result on what should be done.
Certainly what’s good at a communication level, is that it seems that you gave an option, regardless if it was meaningless.
The problem begins of course, when you are finally out of time frame, and you haven’t the ability to meet future needs.
But again you have no need to announce it in advance, since you can cover the immediate needs and you create the impression that there is no problem.
In this manner you reach the choice out of context and there, depending on the decision to be taken, you would argue that you are following the will of the choice.
Only that in the one case nothing changes, and in the other, it creates a continuity without resources.
Then you reveal that there is a serious problem which can not be solved, because it was created by others, and in order not to confess that you have foreseen this scenario from the start, you announce that you have been caught by surprise, but with the trust of others you will continue the struggle.
At this phase the real problem arives, which you can’t solve and you then seek the acceptance of this reality from the others.
Only that at that stage the end begins for you, because from that moment onwards, more and more they discover the previous stages.
So you managed to win the impressions acting out of context, but suddenly you are within, but without any preparation at strategic level and you are rejected by others who are creating a new situation, without your existence, since you no longer belong in it’s the noosphere.