How to generously interpret questions on this site

In summary:

• assume questions are asking about the substantive law;
• assume the facts as stated;
• don't require authors to complicate a question;
• assume the facts have been proved
• international law is law

"Can I be sued?" etc.

Another Meta Q&A addresses this: Answering "Can I be sued?" questions

We presume that questions are not asking about a procedural or standing issue, or about the mere physical ability to do something. Instead, we assume the question is asking about how the law would apply to the facts: e.g. whether the facts as stated would make out a cause of action, or what legal test would apply, or what the legal repercussions would be, etc.

Only when the question clearly raises an issue of standing, limitation periods, jurisdiction, etc. would we depart from that presumption.

Unrealistic facts can be part of the hypothetical

We accept the facts in questions as a given. We need not pry into "why would they do X?" out of disbelief, or chastise the question author with a correction ("that isn't how that technology works").

We are not solving peoples' real-life problems on this site; we are answering how the law applies to the hypothetical facts. And a hypothetical is often intentionally constructed to not conform to the typical circumstance, for the purpose of teasing out a detail of the law.

While an answer might point out in passing that the scenario in the question is not realistic, there is no need to criticize a question for containing unrealistic or far-fetched facts.

If you are in doubt, it may be useful to confirm with the author that they want us to assume those facts as a given, but as this is the default, there really is no need to do so, and certainly not from a position of incredulity. If it really irks you, go ahead and edit the question to lead with something like "for the sake of this hypothetical, assume the following facts... ." One can alternatively caveat an answer with a line like "For the purpose of this answer, I am assuming the facts stated in the question as true."

Don't require question authors to complicate the question

Sometimes a question asks something that seems very simple. (E.g. "Is [some apparently legal thing] illegal?) This is okay. There might be many complications that could make the question more interesting to you, or that would result in a fact pattern that more clearly intersects with criminal prohibitions. But if the question asks about a simple scenario: answer about that simple scenario.

It is a valid answer to observe that the circumstances as presented, without more, do not make out the elements of a tort, or does not make out a crime, etc.

One way of framing an answer to a scenario that appears overly simple to you is to answer like:

Assuming only the facts as expressly stated in the question... [your answer.] If there were more or different facts, that could change this answer.

You can even stray into possible or obvious close variants in your answer. Like:

But if you also did X, then ...

To do this helpfully takes some judgment. If someone asks whether doing X is a crime, it is of little help to add "if you intentionally killed someone while doing X it would be murder."

Questions of proof

A commenter will sometimes add an additional question: "how would you even prove X?" But because we accept the facts in the question as a given as if they were proved, this additional question is not helpful. We have an answer on this site that speaks generally about evidence: How do you prove a fact at issue in litigation?

Unless a question clearly asks an evidential question (admissibility, hearsay, relevance, etc.), we take the facts in the question as a given, as if they were proved to the relevant standard of proof, and answer how the law would apply to them.

International law is law

If someone is asking about international law, they are starting from the premise that it exists and is meaningful as law — please engage with the question on that basis.

See the information at international and the linked Q&As in the expanded info. International law is a well-specified subfield of law in academia and in practice. Several Q&As on this site address the nature of international law:

• What gives rise to binding obligations at international law?
• What does it mean for international law to be binding? What is the nature of obligation at international law?

Regardless of enforceability, or the political aspect of international law, that does not remove its status as law. International law is perhaps not the archetypal example of law that we encounter in our day to day life, but the theory that all law must be an order of a sovereign backed by force has long been displaced, or at least challenged.

Of course it is open to an answer to observe that there are no treaties or customary international law that touch on a specific issue.