There are broadly two classes of contributors to this site, those who (usually obviously) have some form of higher education in philosophy and logic (it's tough to talk the details of Kripke semantics if you're not in the field), and those who aspire to build knowledge of philosophy without formal education and are often engaged in self-study. There can be quite a gulf between someone who has spent decades reading primary literature and someone who is in high school and maybe has a book they have questions on.
I wouldn't characterize the gulf as hostile, but sometimes the contributors of the different groups work at cross-purposes. Professional philosophers and logicians are loathe to spend any time doing someone's homework questions and are usually quite able of drawing highly technical distinctions. Klöcking's ability to speak to Kant (and in the original German at that) constitutes an example of the latter.
You say:
I suspect that many of the questions and answers on this site implicitly have the attitude that this isn't a site to find out how philosophers have or would respond to your questions, but rather we want to break new ground, do what no professional philosopher has thought of yet
Yes. Many contributors come to the site to DO philosophy, and instead of to ask questions ABOUT those who do philosophy. That debate occurred some time ago and it landed roughly on the policy that we are not here to DO philospohy, we are here to ask ABOUT it. See Friends, we are not philosophers for a review. More recently, I pressed in a series of meta posts to challenge the notion there is a strict line between exercising editorial review with such a post: Friends, Are We Not Philosophers: Is This Place a Bazaar or a Cathedral?. But generally speaking, a somewhat inconsistent norm has been established depending on the turnover of the participants.
For non-professional philosphers (myself included), it can be frustrating to see what appear to be introductory level questions which are simply too simple or poorly articulated be discounted as DOING philosophy rather than poor attempts to ask ABOUT philosophy. For the beginner trying to build comprehension, in particular, they are almost the same activity, because drawing a hard distinction between a question that DOES philosophy and is ABOUT philosophy often relies on some very sophisticated vocabulary or conceptual distinction that isn't available to the beginner.
A contributor can simply choose to walk away and go to the The Philosophy Forum instead. Or they can choose to persist, have questions closed, learn from sometimes direct criticism, and attempt to adapt. If that creates a little friction, then that's part of the reality that everyone has friction with the world.
