I think this is a tricky question because:

1. Even taking IANAL into account, the correct answer to a legal question is often determined by small details that make it hard to answer generally.
2. In academic disputes, law is often the nuclear option. Many of the legal questions that I have seen down-voted and closed should really be asking about ethics, policy, or various other sub-legal regulatory mechanisms.
3. Legal questions can often be complicated, time-consuming, or contentious to answer.

I think that #1 and #2 are good reasons to close legal questions, and #3 is a good reason to apply a higher level of scrutiny than fast and simple things like citation style.

Thus, for example, I voted to close the question about laws regarding publishing without acknowledging a student when I learned that it was just a theoretical question and thus failed both #1 and #2 in my view. I feel that for that question to become high enough quality to be answered meaningfully, more information would have been required about the situation and the reasons for considering the nuclear option in the dispute. Since it was theoretical, however, that couldn't really be provided. A similar but more general topic, however, like, "Are there circumstances where you should resolve a publication dispute legally rather than by working with the journal?" might well make a good question.

I think this is a tricky question because:

1. Even taking IANAL into account, the correct answer to a legal question is often determined by small details that make it hard to answer generally.
2. In academic disputes, law is often the nuclear option. Many of the legal questions that I have seen down-voted and closed should really be asking about ethics, policy, or various other sub-legal regulatory mechanisms.
3. Legal questions can often be complicated, time-consuming, or contentious to answer.

I think that #1 and #2 are good reasons to close legal questions, and #3 is a good reason to apply a higher level of scrutiny than fast and simple things like citation style.

Thus, for example, I voted to close the question about laws regarding publishing without acknowledging a student when I learned that it was just a theoretical question and thus failed both #1 and #2 in my view. I feel that for that question to become high enough quality to be answered meaningfully, more information would have been required about the situation and the reasons for considering the nuclear option in the dispute. Since it was theoretical, however, that couldn't really be provided. A similar but more general topic, however, like, "Are there circumstances where you should resolve a publication dispute legally rather than by working with the journal?" might well make a good question.

I think this is a tricky question because:

1. Even taking IANAL into account, the correct answer to a legal question is often determined by small details that make it hard to answer generally.
2. In academic disputes, law is often the nuclear option. Many of the legal questions that I have seen down-voted and closed should really be asking about ethics, policy, or various other sub-legal regulatory mechanisms.
3. Legal questions can often be complicated, time-consuming, or contentious to answer.

I think that #1 and #2 are good reasons to close legal questions, and #3 is a good reason to apply a higher level of scrutiny than fast and simple things like citation style.

Thus, for example, I voted to close the question about laws regarding publishing without acknowledging a student when I learned that it was just a theoretical question and thus failed both #1 and #2 in my view. I feel that for that question become high enough quality to meaningfully answer would have required more information about the situation and the reasons for considering the nuclear option in the dispute. Since it was theoretical, however, that couldn't really be forthcoming. A similar but more general topic, however, like, "Are there circumstances where you should resolve a publication dispute legally rather than by working with the journal?" might well make a good question.

I think this is a tricky question because:

1. Even taking IANAL into account, the correct answer to a legal question is often determined by small details that make it hard to answer generally.
2. In academic disputes, law is often the nuclear option. Many of the legal questions that I have seen down-voted and closed should really be asking about ethics, policy, or various other sub-legal regulatory mechanisms.
3. Legal questions can often be complicated, time-consuming, or contentious to answer.

I think that #1 and #2 are good reasons to close legal questions, and #3 is a good reason to apply a higher level of scrutiny than fast and simple things like citation style.

Thus, for example, I voted to close the question about laws regarding publishing without acknowledging a student when I learned that it was just a theoretical question and thus failed both #1 and #2 in my view. I feel that for that question to become high enough quality to be answered meaningfully, more information would have been required about the situation and the reasons for considering the nuclear option in the dispute. Since it was theoretical, however, that couldn't really be provided. A similar but more general topic, however, like, "Are there circumstances where you should resolve a publication dispute legally rather than by working with the journal?" might well make a good question.