Ok, I have changed my whole mindset on this question so have deleted all my half-baked previous thoughts. (Warning I may be only 3/4 baked now but still want to engage the topic) Keep in mind I have only begun to think about it.
First, after considering the difficulties of how to manage a site about Christianity in what is essentially a non Christian parent site, the difficulty is enormous and the moderator's role extremely important. The whole site can rise into high value, or descend into absolute rubbish (like yahoo answers) very quickly.
For my own experience I have to admit as someone who basically does not have many questions, trying to formulate one is actually harder than answering the most difficult questions. I have over the last couple of days learned and reading this post helped.
I have since revised the question about paranoa, which is hopefully more constructively phrased. If it is, then at least I have benefited from this discussion.
Second, I do still have a somewhat independent view of the subject. I mean independent from how some moderators are trying to drive this big bus on a straight road. I think Caleb is doing the best job of it in general (just my opinion) but as I still do not really understand the FAQ is a way that can be quickly applied, I am starting to develop my own 'cheat sheet' and will probably avoid complex questions until my 'cheat sheet' is more polished.
Here is my current evolving 'unofficial guide' to the FAQ of this site.
chritianiaty.stackexchnage is a site using excellent technology that is administered by the world. Therefore, high level admins, or at least the parent site, will not really understand what is important to Christianity, and even moderators on the site might be clueless as to what matters to the majority of its users. Therefore, the best question and answers are those which atheists can perceive the logic of, looking outside of the actual meaning being discussed. This means although most questions are actually alright, so long as they show some recognition of Christian doctrines or history, answers should at a minimum quote published material that could be verified by an atheist and be presented honestly so that their arguments, made upon those references, are verified academic. If the connection to the references misrepresent the author's which are quoted then it is a fallacy argument that even an atheist can determine and moderate. I would call this not academic. We should really present our questions and answers under the eye of an atheists, since we are borrowing their technology for purposes they are not able to perceive, or admit as valid.
The subject I am still unsure of, centers around things that one can't find a published quotation to refer to in an answer. Sometimes the only published expert opinion, are Bible references. However, I am starting to be inclined to think that for the protection of the quality of this site, an answer should generally find at least one published opinion from someone, other than the Bible, to keep its academic quality. (This should be a publicly admitted weakness of the site and those who fail to grasp the need, should not be treated as though they have a problem, but should be apologized to over and over again. ) We should all be given a month or so to revisit all our answers to ensure we have quoted a published work besides the Bible, and later delete hundreds of answers on this site. Although I think many good questions are raised on this site, the amount of expert answers is not very high.
I realize I am now taking a more nazi approach, but I am still very liberal on actual questions. Almost all of them are all right, so long as professional answers are provided. However, when a question does not illicit answers with a published quote. By 'quote' I do not means a random quote from a web-page unless a kind of semi-objective wiki, I mean a published 'book' 'physical or electronic' - then the question should also be deleted. I do not see much harm in adding this kind of rule. It will only wipe away all the rubbish on this site. For those answers I have made without quotes, it would take me no time to add good ones.
These are just my current opinions, I am providing them not under the impression that they 'should be followed' but for the purposes of adding some contribution to the subject. I do not mind being an independent, I usually am anyway. As far as trying to formulate good and bad answers under an envelope like What Bible X / Y according to Z, is not really the way to go for me. I do not mean to disrespect the attempt and these attempts are probably the best attempts currently being made. Its just that I think the nature of a good and bad question can't really be captured by a computer program using sentence structure recognition.