The following is not my own opinion so much as it's my rendering into words the unworded guidelines that I think Mi Yodeya has been following for quite some time. It's posted without my moderator hat on. I welcome your comments (arguments for/against rendering the guidelines into words altogether; arguments for/against the inclusion of any part of what I've written; suggestions for refinement of the statement; rotten tomatoes; etc.) in the answers below.
I'm hoping a refined version of this can be a FAQ entry. (Please also comment in answers below on why it shouldn't be, if that's what you think.)
Suppose a question post can be interpreted as seeking practical guidance, whether halachic or other, about a scenario. And suppose the scenario in that post combines two (or more) aspects into one, not because they're intrinsically or frequently related but, seemingly, only because they happen to coincide in a case that has arisen. Then we should close that question (and perhaps can use the p'sak-seeking standard closure reason).
I have three arguments for this; in no particular order:
- Questions should be of general interest. A question that's specific to an individual's situation just isn't interesting to others.
- Askers shouldn't rely on Mi Yodeya for practical guidance. A question that's specific to an individual's situation is more likely to be used to that end.
- Questions should invite answers. When a question involves multiple unrelated issues, potential answerers will be tempted to address only one or some of those issues and thus give partial answers.
However, an exception can be made if the situation that has arisen and led to the question is a famous one. There, my argument #1 fails (the question is of general interest), #2 fails (the question is about a famous case, not the asker's case), and #3 stands.