What happens if there are conflicting opinions on a specific paper under review? In ScholarOne, if there are conflicting opinions on a specific paper under review, would several other members of the editorial board (not just the assigned reviewers) converse on the given article?

I think that if a paper has aroused several conflicting opinions by the assigned peer-reviewers, several other members of the board would participate in the conversation, discussing with each other "behind the scene" by emails etc. on whether the paper should be published or not. Would this happen before the editor-in-chief's decision? I have a fourth article under review and would like to know the general prassi behind the scenes.

In short, what I am thinking, would, in a conflicting situation, some other members of the board participate to a kind of an unformal, "virtual" conversation inside the ScholarOne, and then the last decision would be made.
I'm sure YMMV, but there is usually an Associate Editor (a member of the Board to whom the paper was assigned) that will make a recommendation to the Editor based on the reviews. The conversation you refer to usually takes place between the two of them. If an additional review is needed to decide, it can be requested. The rest of the Board is usually not involved (they have their own assignments to worry about). As an author you may or may not know who the Associate Editor assigned to your paper is.