New ATM threads arise in two quite distinct ways; namely, as a thread (or split posts) move, from some other part of BAUT; or as a new thread started by a BAUTian, presenting a new ATM idea (or an old one, updated by significantly new material).
This thread is about the first - new ATM threads which are the result of a move (by a mod) of a thread elsewhere in BAUT, or by splitting out posts from an existing thread (elsewhere), to form a new ATM thread.
The suggestion is this: put all such new ATM threads into a special area, for up to two days. The OP - the BAUTian proposing the new ATM idea - gets (an automatic?) PM, informing them of the creation of the new thread, and a request that they respond within 48 hours. The response sought is a clear, unambiguous willingness to proceed with the thread (or the contrary); the PM to them contains strongly worded advice about reading the ATM rule, and especially the READ THIS THREAD FIRST thread. If a clear, unambiguous response is not received within 48 hours, the new ATM thread goes nowehere*; this includes a non-response (i.e. the default is the new ATM thread goes nowhere).
Because, AFAICS, every single new ATM thread created in this way, in the last couple of years (maybe longer) has been painful, to challengers, to the ATM proponent, to casual readers. In every single case^ the ATM proponent has been poorly prepared - sometimes woefully so - to answer even the most simple, basic questions (e.g. on scope), much less actually answer all direct questions, pertinent to the ATM idea, as presented. Had they had a chance to seriously reflect on what they could, realistically, expect, they would very quickly see what they were getting themselves in for; I suspect most would choose not to proceed.
However, should they choose, openly and unambiguously, to proceed, then there should be no sympathy whatsoever for them if they subsequently become completely overwhelmed.
* maybe it gets posted into the ATM section, but is locked; maybe it just remains in a non-visible area of BAUT; maybe ...
^ I would welcome any nominations for counter-examples!