Yes, I think after so many years, it's beyond time for allowing radical change in the region, rather than going through this same cycle of activity, entrenchment, and inactivity. I joined TSP in 2013, and not much about our region has changed. Things were fairly static before Milograd's coup, and once the dust settled after, nothing was really happening. It wasn't until Escade was elected Delegate that major changes (aside from one failed attempt after another of judicial reform) started being discussed. But those changes were really in spirit, and in the end all it amounted to was Belschaft, Hileville, and other long-time powerful players being replaced by Kris, Escade, and myself. That change happened based on Belschaft's own goodwill about picking new players and giving them leadership positions, which was ultimately his own downfall. But it also coincided with a major Gameplay cold war between defenders and imperialists, which TSP got caught up in, and that changed our politics to allow a new anti-imperialist/neutral bloc to rise to power.

What activity we had for the majority of the past 2-3 years has been generated by controversies. Escade's temporary removal as Delegate; my Cabinet forum leak; the Hileville admin crisis and forum move; the fights over Independence; practically my entire tenure as MoFA; then the election battle between me and Wolf, and the subsequent fallout. To Kris' credit, he managed to create regional events that actually did spur activity without controversy. But other than that, I mean, it's been pretty consistent.

Other regions have gone through coups or other major changes. Lazarus has had several governments, and saw varying successes in activity throughout their experimentation. Osiris transformed itself. Balder tried its hardest to be active, but I think their case is terminal. But in TSP, these kinds of transformations are impossible, because we're trapped by consensus. The closest we ever came was your push for bicameralism, which I successfully blocked by utilizing the very consensus-building changes you made to the voting threshold for Great Councils. Bicameralism had solid majority support! It should've gone through, despite my protests. We could've let that experiment run, had we not been constrained by the need for 75%+ for those kinds of changes. (I still would've opposed the kind of bicameralism you wanted, but still!)

We need to be a more dynamic region, and for that to happen, our laws have to be easy to change. This is just a game; we don't need to treat the Charter like a sacred document. All this desire for consensus freezes us, and it affects everything we do. The Cabinet doesn't make a decision unless there's a consensus. Appointments are made based on who will easily pass the Assembly, which usually means whoever has had the job before or has uncontroversial opinions. It's a part of our tradition that hurts us, because "stability" isn't always a good thing in the long term in a game premised on players being able to construct and contribute to fake governments.