I fully understand what you mean in your first point; AGF gets pushed to its limit at times.
I am not sure how to get a better response - I have had similar experience with RfCs. I am hoping that, since this would have oversight, it would be seen as more "serious" than an ordinary RfC, which would bring some additional comment. But thought will need to go into this to see how best to advertise it.
The "lack of interest" idea was literally just an idea. The thrust of this 'proposal' is that, by causing the "loudmouths" (such as me!) to shut up after presenting their case, it would be easier for other parties to discuss the salient points of the issue. In my experience, important points get "lost" in the debate as one side or the other will (sometimes deliberately) drown them out with side-issues. This is why the role of overseer is crucial. The overseer would be required to look out for people doing this and rein them in. In that environment a consensus has a better chance. However, we must have a mechanism by which resolution can be achieved without consensus (in a similar way to ArbCom). Hence, the idea would require an "oversight committee" (to be dubbed "OverCom", no doubt) that would make a "final resort" decision. I suspect that this would usually be in favour of one side or the other, but they should perhaps have the option of saying "neither is right" (or both, to some extent).
Just had a thought that may be worth considering. It might be a good idea to set up a wikiproject dedicated to this, with a view to encouraging people who join to take part in the debates. Clearly, this would improve the numbers of "neutrals".