We put a strong emphasis on answerability because it ties together a lot of the issues around subjectivity. Questions should be structured so that they have a specific answer -- in other words, should reflect an actual problem you're facing in your study of philosophy. One key here is that as a network it is important to try to avoid mostly opinion questions and answers.
Basically: questions shouldn't open a broad discussion, but should be narrowly focused around a specific problem, asking for an explanation about a particular issue or concern arising naturally from the practice of studying philosophy.
For further suggestions in terms of grokking the community ethos -- which it might help to keep in mind we share with Wikipedia -- I'd strongly recommend reviewing the FAQ, our About pages, the Community FAQ as well as Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.
Putting aside the larger concerns about tone and balance for a moment, my suggestions here would be as follows. The following is, generally speaking, a "constructive" question type:
- How does thinker X [arrive at conclusion/resolve problem] Y?
It has a specific answer, grounded in a text, subject to a reasonable minimum of interpretation. The following, generally speaking, isn't "constructive":
- How have philosophers responded to theory X?
In certain narrow cases, this might have a reasonable minimum of possible answers -- in particular, I'm thinking of the one about Locke. So that's a middle case that would have to be evaluated in situ, but definitely isn't "constructive" in the general case; though there may be sufficiently focused instances:
- How did thinker's X ideas influence modern life/thought/society?
One of the issues here is that it's not just about question-types, but about the formulation of the question itself -- how focused, narrow, specific, balanced, etc. At any rate, feel free to ask further questions here on meta if this is still unclear. We're here to try to help support constructive reformulations with an eye to reopening closed questions.