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?