Not meant in disrespect, but if your main contribution to Assembly debate in the last several months is in this thread vehemently opposing a Great Council, I don't think it's really an opinion that should be heavily engaged. A Great Council, if done, would be explicitly about creating TSP for the active new generation, not the intermittently active (and inherently conservative) aging generation.

The demand to have a list of specific changes before even agreeing to hold a Great Council is unreasonable. Not all previous Great Councils had that. And even the few that did, like the one called for bicameralism, those ideas were quickly outshined by other unplanned proposals and the original main reason to hold them ultimately had very little support. 

I would not mind if a Great Council lasted for months, while people take their time to thoughtfully propose and debate new systems and laws. (Whether we'd keep the clause about pausing elections in that case would be up for debate. I don't really consider an authorizing resolution to be sacrosanct or require a supermajority to change.) If no changes are adopted, that's perfectly fine. It's not a waste of time if it got people thinking and more engaged in actually governing. We've treated TSP like an event-driven gaming group, instead of a political government simulation. It's already been said in this thread before, but I think if a Great Council is called, people will rise up to the task. If you don't think so, then you probably just lack imagination.