I agree with Isaac's answer to the previous question on this topic, but it is general rather than a specific answer to the question posed here. So, to specifics.
This is, in addition to an answer to the above question, a response to Monica Cellio's well-written and obviously well-thought-out answer, so as to highlight where I disagree with it.
The question asks:
1. Are questions asked from the perspective of, or about, a particular movement on-topic? Always? Only halachic movements like Conservative? Never; this is an Orthodox site?
Monica Cellio's answer (hereinafter "MC" (just for ease and WADR)):
Asking questions about, or from the perspective of, any Jewish movement or community should be permitted.
I agree in general, but we need a question to be answerable and (as the FAQ list says) "for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more".
Thus, it cannot be "Can someone explain this practice of Mysect Judaism?" where Mysect Judaism lacks Jewish-tradition-based sources that discuss the question.
But if Mysect Judaism has Jewish-tradition-based sources (as, e.g., Conservative Judaism does AFAIK) then I see nothing wrong with the question. (It should specify that it seeks answers based in Jewish tradition, if the asker (or editor) suspects answers may not be based thus.)
MC gave these as examples of good questions:
What is Confirmation? Why do Reform and Conservative do it?
What sources does the Conservative movement use to support mixed seating?
Aside from starting a few weeks early, is s'lichot the same for Sefardim as for Ashkenazim?
My new Conservative congregation doesn't observe yom tov sheni but my family always has. Do I follow my family tradition or my community?
I have heard that Breslev has a custom to (something). What are the origins of that?
The confirmation question is a good one about Jewish life.
If the yom tov sheni question seeks halachic answers (as it seems to), it should say so. It's a good question, but perfectly good answers to it may cite orthodox sources.
Questions like the following should not be permitted as asked:
What can I do about eating at my Reform relative's wedding? (Should be rephrased as: "What can I do about eating at a wedding with a venue I presume is not kosher?")
Is Conservative Judaism avodah zara? (Close: not constructive.)
Is the Lubavich practice of accosting people on the streets to lay t'fillin chillul Hashem? (Should be rephrased along the lines of "How far is it permitted to go to encourage people you meet to lay t'fillin?". The question body could cite experiences with Lubavach as an example.)
MC doesn't (as of this writing) explain a general rule under which those questions should not be permitted, so I'll address the individual cases. I disagree with MC on the first and third cases: they should be reworded, I agree, for generality's sake, but are valid, albeit weak, as asked. The second one should be reworded to clarify why the asker thinks Conservative Judaism might have the halachic status of avoda zara, and should be closed as not constructive until that's done so it doesn't attract unsourced rhetoric as answers, but seems, once reworded, like a valid halacha-related question to me. (I'm not sure whether what I said about the second example question isn't also what MC meant.)
The question continues:
2. Are answers from the perspective of a particular movement, with that perspective declared, on-topic? Always? Only if the question asked for same? Never?
Answers from the perspective of a particular community should be permitted. Answers should state their perspective if other than the default of "mainstream traditional". Answers that give advice should be especially careful about this.
I agree, though I'd apply it strongly to all answers.
However, an answer needs to be on-topic. So an answer like "Father Mypriest forbids this activity" is deletable as not based on Jewish tradition. Likewise, an answer like "Rabbi Myrabbi forbids this activity because…" or "It's forbidden because…", where the quoted reasoning is clearly not based on Jewish tradition, is deletable. But "Rabbi Myrabbi forbids this activity because…", where his reasoning is arguably based on Jewish tradition (or we don't know his reasoning), or even "This activity is forbidden" sans sources, is technically fine and therefore not moderator-deletable (but see next paragraph), though the latter will probably be heavily downvoted.
And I see no problem with the community's voting to delete heavily downvoted answers.
For example, the driving-on-Shabbat answer above should be recast as: "For Conservative Jews, some (many? most?) rabbis permit driving to the nearest synagogue under the following circumstances... (explanation, link go here)" The problem with the answer as given is not that it uses a Conservative source but that it presumes the asker would find that relevant. An answer to a question about Pesach food restrictions that said "Sefardim say there's no problem with rice; chow down" would have the same problem.
I disagree. The original, "According to the Conservative Movement, you may drive to synagogue. Drive there, and join your congregation" is valid as an answer (if sources are added). MC's emendation, "For Conservative Jews,… rabbis permit driving to the nearest synagogue" is fine, too (though it should be sourced). I likewise see no problem with "Sefardim say there's no problem with rice; chow down" (though it should be sourced).
The question concludes:
3. If the answer to 1 or 2 is negative, does the same principle apply to other sub-groups or communities like Breslev, Satmar, Modern Orthodox, Chareidi?
What I wrote above applies to them.