As a fairly new user of this site who seems to be 'out of synch' with the current moderator direction I can propose from my perspective "What works and what don't".
1) Civility(tone and address)
You opened the door to all, you expect all to be courteous and respectful. Wars have been fought over this stuff, they don't have to be fought here. Respectfully disagree and don't prolong the agony.
2) Handling Tensions
Anytime someone posts their research/opinion there is a certain amount of tension: they are invested in their viewpoint and someone else is invested in theirs. This site exposes the tensions that exist by giving the answerer the means to expose a certain view and the audience to approve/disapprove based on their vote. The challenge with THIS SITE is that there is no neutral corner: unlike microbiology or quantum physics, G-D is not 'neutral', sitting in the audience eating popcorn while we debate. What that means then is there ARE right and wrong answers, and they can't be decided by 'thumbs up or down'.
The 'mods', like it or not, are predisposed to a certain view, so therefore their 'interference' should be based on 1) Is this a legitimate question arising from the text-to which hermeneutics can be applied(whether or not I agree with the answer); 2) Are 'credible'(objective) sources being used to support one's viewpoint?
3) Are there glaring inconsistancies, ad hominum, straw men, or other methods used to win an audience without substance?
4) Does the answerer make a 'point', and have they established a position that can be supported or rebutted?
3) Handling Diversity
You have a Global Website, so therefore you have a Global Audience. English-though the language of use may not be the user's native language. Culture also plays in the mix, a user from Europe may be predisposed to respond to an answer differently than someone from the Lone Star State. If the user knows the guidelines, then they have a context to which they can respond, and can expect some leeway given their 'cultural/language/theological perspective' as long as they operate within the guidelines. Tensions exist-they don't need to create them. What would be helpful is if they posted answers which help to explain and resolve tensions-where they can be resolved.
I don't have a clue as to what a 'good' question is. I would say,"One that stems from the text and can be resolved from the text", but further inquery told me that that wasn't necesarily so. I had hoped we could ask the "Hard Questions" that demanded good answers, not just repeats of last Sunday's sermon. I believe that the 'mods'(when they get their act together) would expand the boundaries of what is a 'Good Question'. I believe the Community through it's involvement would help focus them on this endeavor. I believe the current effort is being made to 'limit' what a good question is, so that only a language scholar or 'academe' would feel welcome in offering his technical expertise: this makes it easier to correct, but limits the focus and audience-besides, the 'academe' has many other venues and opportunies to exposit his views, it would be the height of boredom (IMO) to need an on-line site to accomplish this.
If you want to stay current, relevant, and necessary, I suggest you allow questions and answers to flow from the mass of participants who feel the need to ask or response to answer-and (mods) be referees given the perameters that I've outlined. It's more work, I believe there will be more usefulness/reward.