How should the EU related trespass questions be asked or more generally how to deal with jurisdiction-duplicates?

Question

Asking a non-jurisdiction specific or several-jurisdiction question typically result in answers that are hard to accept if one is actually interested in the full range of jurisdictions defined in whatever way they may do.

The question on trespass in Germany received on-point answers, and I wished to obtain answer in similar quality to each Member States of the EU or 27 jurisdictions. I submitted the question for Member States of the EU which is too well defined to be a non-jurisdiction limited and too vague (broad) for a jurisdiction specific question.

One may wish to answer one Member State, but the OP may very well refuse to accept one question as it will likely not address all. Also, expecting an answer to cover each with such specificity as it shows in the Germany-related question is also unexpectable since the work with it would equal approximately 27 times the normal length of another answer for the same scores and/or reputations.

Probably for this reason, someone closed the Member State question and I would agree: Wisely so.

Therefore, I decided to submit the questions one by one in order to attract the attention needed to each questions for the same quality answers and also allow for proportionate site incentives to be applicable.

The community was extremely supportive. No mod asked for closure. I had to. Because I couldn't feel comfortable submitting another 25 before the second (relating to Austria) is merged with the German question which then could have been made broader as a Member State-related parent question including all accepted answers without depriving the answerer of their scores and reputation points. (Moderators, is this possible? Can you merge without taking away the score or reputations?)

I hope one of the moderators would merge so I could have submitted my 3rd question relating to the next Member State alphabetically.

Now since that didn't happen for days now, and the closure request still didn't reach the point that it needed to be closed (merged), I submitted the 3rd question (on Belgium), but I definitely feel already very uncomfortable to think of needing to submit the 4th question.

I also wish to speak on behalf of the great people who submitted some excellent, well-developed answers: They also have a just concern, they put their efforts in the answer, and would lose the credit for them if these would be deleted. And they never would have put that much of time (for e.g. Rock Ape) to answer each of them under an all-Member States question, because that could have been much more reasonable to just have a general answer for all or groups of them or very short, maybe one-line answer summaries for each at best. The answer's and the way they were made by Rock Ape are clearly of significant value to the site and therefore I hope whatever solution there will be for this matter: It will protect the credits given to him and anyone else similarly situated as an answerer.

Could a moderator give guidance how to align all considerable interest in a just and reasonable manner and how to obtain these answers? How should I (and others similarly positioned with their questions) submit these questions?

Answer 1

Such questions are not well suited to the Stack Exchange format

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Further, it's not really appropriate for you to ask the same question about each jurisdiction in the EU (or the World):

If you are looking for the law in a particular area, please tag your question with the appropriate jurisdiction tag (e.g. united-states, texas, new-york-city, england-and-wales). Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions – while it might not answer your question directly, your question will be here for others who may be from those jurisdictions.

The choice to submit an answer that is off-jurisdiction is on the answerer, not the questioner, so issues of "reward" don't come up - they presumably know it won't be accepted and they're happy with that.

I wished to obtain answer in similar quality to each Member States of the EU or 27 jurisdictions.

Why?

That's not what we're here for:

Focus on questions about an actual problem you have faced. Include details about what you have tried and exactly what you are trying to do.

I find it hard to believe that you have been involved in trespassing in all member states of the EU. How is this "an actual problem you have faced"?

Basically, what you want falls foul of:

Don't ask about...

Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer

Answer 2

How should I (and others similarly positioned with their questions) submit these questions?

Make it interesting, and keep it narrow in terms of both jurisdiction and topic.

Questions about comparative law regarding two or three legal systems can be interesting, but expecting an answer to encompass "the full range of jurisdictions" is unrealistic and demotivating. That approach spells out "Do my dissertation for me", although the alternative, repetitive approach of posting one separate question for each jurisdiction would not really dissimulate that message either.

Asking for the full range of jurisdictions is otherwise pointless because one hardly ever needs to know the differences and analogies between so many jurisdictions. Furthermore, keep in mind that legislation of topics such as trespass might vary by provinces rather than just by country.

You might want to show effort or at least provide some thought-provoking background to prompt us to address the question. For instance, what exactly makes you think that the Czech Republic and Slovakia legislated the topic of trespass differently? Likewise, the hypothetical scenario "Bob refuses to leave a government building" in each question is uninteresting (in part because no reasonable person would deliberately put himself in that situation) and merely calls for encyclopedic knowledge.

You mention that you "definitely feel already very uncomfortable to think of needing to submit the 4th question". But compare between your pattern of copy/paste and others' much harder task of doing the research of each legislation (and risk it being not enough because you also would like court decisions). To most of us it is just not worth the significantly greater effort that it takes to do the research and draft a useful answer.