Upon reading this post, I thought of much retort, thankfully, aaron_baugher said most of it more clearly and succinctly than I might have. So I'll confine myself to addressing this sentence:

I can freely accept that the only apparent response to my posting was 30 (so far...) downvotes.

That pretty well sums up why this place (and other sites; but that is their problem) need downvotes. A few more statistics.

Without downvotes, your three posts in this thread would show: +8 +5 +1

Which could only be read as a small but consistently positive support for your proposal.

But the reality stands as -38 .v. +8 -20 .v. +5 -9 .v. +1

Hence, a notional, small positive support turns into an overwhelming 82.7% rejection of your proposal, on the basis of the response to your posts alone.

On the basis of pro .v. anti posts in the thread, it is nearer 95% anti your proposal.

And on the basis of all the votes cast in the thread for posts that vaguely support you; versus those very clearly against, it is closer to 99%.

The disenfranchisement of the ability to record an active rejection -- in favor of passive acceptance -- would place the monastery into a reality distortion field, leading to the same outcome as "a few good men doing nothing".