For the women speaking in church question, I can see being uncomfortable with the original phrasing:
How are we to understand this passage's application to church function today?
But the revised version fixed quite a lot with a relatively minor edit:
What was Paul's intent in conveying this command?
The first, to borrow language from the Inductive Method, lands the question in Application and the second is Interpretation. I think the edit rehabilitated the question altogether.
I'd say that any question that primarily addresses the meaning of a text to the original audience is on-topic even if the resulting answer has a clear application. Questions that assume a meaning of the text and jump right to application must be fixed to avoid losing our focus on hermeneutics.
What makes the Micah tricky is that it's suggesting an interpretive lens. If the question insisted on that lens (e.g., "This passage is about Jesus. Help me prove that."), it would need fixing. But in my opinion, it leaves room for other lenses to be applied. Maybe even the suggestion that a text should be interpreted one way or another ought to be off limits, but I think not. Suggesting an interpretation shows the asker has thought about the question on their own. If they were certain the particular solution worked, they wouldn't be asking the question (unless they were planing to self-answer, of course).
I'd further suggest that insisting on not covering doctrine is itself a doctrinal framework. If I had to leave my previous understanding of the Bible on the threshold of this site, it would make asking and answering here almost impossible and ensure that none of my words would be authentic. Avoiding application altogether would eliminate the most important reason for me to interact with these ancient texts.
We need to be careful with people bringing their own doctrine into this community, however. As I see it, the problem with outside doctrine hinges on those ideas drowning out the texts themselves. If each question brings a predictable set of answers in the form of "My pastor says...", the site has failed its mission. I propose solving the problem, not by making doctrinal evidence verboten, but by setting the value of such evidence for the general community at or very near zero. If an answer consist of nothing but doctrinal evidence, its not worth anything and ought to be voted down.
Letting the texts speak for themselves is our best hope for bringing in a variety of answers and allowing them all to have equal footing.
(My view on closing questions is a minority (possibly of one) position: I think no question that still has a chance to gather on-topic answers should be closed.)