What you propose is dangerous.
Prevents the possibility for growth and acquisition of knowledge.
It also kills the two main functions of this site, those being discussion, and denial of ignorance.
You can't discuss something if you preach to the choir or if you bury your head in the sand when a dissenting speaker steps up for their turn.
Honestly if you want the board to descend into useless-ness your idea is the best way.
I suggest (if you want a lock step discussion with no dissenting views offered) you find another forum, as ATS is all about discussion and denying
You can't have either without dissenting views.
What follows is a post I made on another thread re this topic before I removed it.
I removed it because honestly not only is your idea horrible but to thread jack someone else's thread just to gain views/reads of a thread that
hasn't been replied to in over 2 months is just rude.
It's a bad idea, and thread jacking just to drum up support isn't right.
Here is was I was gonna say on the thread you tried to jack.
There are a few problems with that.
Who determines if the person posting is opposed.
I started out liking the OP and just tried to help.
It wasn't until much later that the OP tipped me against him.
So who determines?
Yes their posts can be read... but only as an option.
What like choosing to view a comment with many thumbs down on youtube you have to actively select it?
That doesn't allow for proper discussions.
If we only read posts we agree with we never grow as individuals.
If we don't see dissenting view points we aren't challenged, and we could miss out on information.
Even opposing views deserve to be seen.
I would say that as long as a post doesn't violate the ToS and contain undo insults, or violent rhetoric then yes everyone should be exposed to all
Your asking for a sheltered world view and growth can not occur when one is sheltered.
Not to mention on certain threads there could be very important posts that point out significant flaws in an OP.
If you segregate these posts there are people who could miss them.
How can we collectively as a board "Deny Ignorance" if we ignore all the input?
We can't, the board as it exists to Deny Ignorance would cease to exist and we would spiral into the chaos of crack pot theories.
Your suggestion would remove the main purpose of the board which is discussion.
You can't discuss something if you ignore the opposing view points.
Might as well preach to the choir and stick your head in the sand if a guest speaker comes in.
I would suggest an anti flag and anti star as means of the board members weighing in on entire threads and entire posts.
If the post adds something give it a star, if not a red star.
Same with threads.
If it's interesting give it a flag, if a thread in your opinion is bunk give it a red flag.
Don't censor posts, change their level, or make people actively have to display them.
You can't discuss anything like that and you certainly can't Deny Ignorance if you ignore dissenting view points.