A few things:

1. A war or diplomatic crisis RP is pretty self-sustaining. It simply doesn't need much nurturing, because it keeps people interested due to its very nature. A cultural RP is not necessarily self-sustaining, and as regretful as this may be, you cannot expect people to respond to it with the same interest that they have with war or diplomatic roleplays.

In that sense, you will need to poke people, send them messages, constantly ask for feedback, but also realise what ideas have potential. Your pilgrimage idea has little chance of being passed, because our laws prevent our governments from supporting religious activities. But other ideas like the scholarship and the seed bank have a lot of potential, and they only need constant poking.

I know it can be frustrating. I myself have done my fair share of poking and lobbying on occasion, and I have been very frustrated when activity dwindled. But ultimately the solution is to take matters into your own hands, and create the activity you want to see.

2. As an international relations major, I feel pretty confident in saying that international politics is not about finding common ground, it's about getting the upper hand*. That certainly may involve cooperation at times, but it's not the ultimate goal in and of itself.

3. I'm not trying to dictate the format all resolutions should have, but an amendment clause would not be strictly necessary. Since all resolutions are equally ranked, any future resolution can repeal or amend a previous one.

4. I'm not saying you shouldn't feel frustrated. I think you have very legitimate and understandable grounds to feel that way. But adopting a snarky tone will only alienate people, rather than win them over. I should know, I've fallen into that trap more than once, and it took me nowhere. It's better when you take a deep breath and make a calm post. You will look more reasonable, and people will have an incentive to start listening.

* OK, for those who know their IR theories, I did lean towards realism there. You can definitely argue that international politics is also about cooperation, but i think it would be naive to say that the sole purpose is cooperation, or finding common ground. States always have interests, and they will always try to further them. It would be illogical for a state to compromise for the sake of compromise, when that might well be against its interest.