The benefit is clear: Having a consistent handling of questions that are off-topic, to avoid a "broken window" situation. We need this to make our site attractive to competent people that are able to write both good questions and more important, good answers and keep them interested in the long run. We have a too large number of people who contribute a lot less or not at all anymore due to exhaustion with the steady stream of low-quality and/or off-topic question.

You could try to make a case that we should change our rules to allow product recommendation question, but until you successfully do that, those questions will continue to get closed.

Regarding your edits:

• Separation of powers really is a concept that applies to states, not to an internet Q&A site. Nevertheless, we have this kind of separation of powers anyway, in a way. You can appeal a mod action by posting to meta, regular users are able to outvote a mod decision, e.g. by vote to reopen and you even can appeal to a "higher instance" by contacting the SE community managers.

• I didn't felt personally insulted, but your comment @Sven I paraphrase: Because you have no solution, this question is off-topic. nevertheless forms an insult, essentially claiming I (or everyone else really) that votes to close a question does this abusively because we are frustrated about not knowing the answer. If that where the case, 100% of questions on SE would get closed.

• Socrates doesn't apply to this. First, the whole form doesn't work all that well on our site due to the strict separation of questions, answer and comments - SF is not a discussion forum after all. More importantly though, the topic at hand is not what is the best way to solve a problem but if your question is welcome here at all.

NB: Did you notice that my first comment to your question was in fact employing the socratic method anyway? Your response was not very constructive in regard to that method, essentially saying "By magic unknown to me".

The benefit is clear: Having a consistent handling of questions that are off-topic, to avoid a "broken window" situation. We need this to make our site attractive to competent people that are able to write both good questions and more important, good answers and keep them interested in the long run. We have a too large number of people who contribute a lot less or not at all anymore due to exhaustion with the steady stream of low-quality and/or off-topic question.

You could try to make a case that we should change our rules to allow product recommendation question, but until you successfully do that, those questions will continue to get closed.

Regarding your edits:

• Separation of powers really is a concept that applies to states, not to an internet Q&A site. Nevertheless, we have this kind of separation of powers anyway, in a way. You can appeal a mod action by posting to meta, regular users are able to outvote a mod decision, e.g. by vote to reopen and you even can appeal to a "higher instance" by contacting the SE community managers.

• I didn't felt personally insulted, but your comment @Sven I paraphrase: Because you have no solution, this question is off-topic. nevertheless forms an insult, essentially claiming I (or everyone else really) that votes to close a question does this abusively because we are frustrated about not knowing the answer. If that where the case, 100% of questions on SE would get closed.

• Socrates doesn't apply to this. First, the whole form doesn't work all that well on our site due to the strict separation of questions, answer and comments - SF is not a discussion forum after all. More importantly though, the topic at hand is not what is the best way to solve a problem but if your question is welcome here at all.

  NB: Did you notice that my first comment to your question was in fact employing the socratic method anyway? Your response was not very constructive in regard to that method, essentially saying "By magic unknown to me".

The benefit is clear: Having a consistent handling of questions that are off-topic, to avoid a "broken window" situation.

You could try to make a case that we should change our rules to allow this kind of question, but until you successfully do that, questions like that will continue to get closed.

Regarding your edits:

• Separation of powers really is a concept that applies to states, not to a internet Q&A site. Nevertheless, we have this kind of separation of powers anyway, in a way. You can appeal a mod action by posting to meta, regular users are able to outvote a mod decision, e.g. by vote to reopen and you even can appeal to a "higher instance" by contacting the SE community managers.

• I didn't felt personally insulted, but your comment @Sven I paraphrase: Because you have no solution, this question is off-topic. nevertheless forms an insult, essentially claiming I (or everyone else really) that votes to close a question does this abusively because we are frustrated about not knowing the answer. If that where the case, 100% of questions on SE would get closed.

• Socrates doesn't apply to this.

The benefit is clear: Having a consistent handling of questions that are off-topic, to avoid a "broken window" situation. We need this to make our site attractive to competent people that are able to write both good questions and more important, good answers and keep them interested in the long run. We have a too large number of people who contribute a lot less or not at all anymore due to exhaustion with the steady stream of low-quality and/or off-topic question.

You could try to make a case that we should change our rules to allow product recommendation question, but until you successfully do that, those questions will continue to get closed.

Regarding your edits:

• Separation of powers really is a concept that applies to states, not to an internet Q&A site. Nevertheless, we have this kind of separation of powers anyway, in a way. You can appeal a mod action by posting to meta, regular users are able to outvote a mod decision, e.g. by vote to reopen and you even can appeal to a "higher instance" by contacting the SE community managers.

• I didn't felt personally insulted, but your comment @Sven I paraphrase: Because you have no solution, this question is off-topic. nevertheless forms an insult, essentially claiming I (or everyone else really) that votes to close a question does this abusively because we are frustrated about not knowing the answer. If that where the case, 100% of questions on SE would get closed.

• Socrates doesn't apply to this. First, the whole form doesn't work all that well on our site due to the strict separation of questions, answer and comments - SF is not a discussion forum after all. More importantly though, the topic at hand is not what is the best way to solve a problem but if your question is welcome here at all.

NB: Did you notice that my first comment to your question was in fact employing the socratic method anyway? Your response was not very constructive in regard to that method, essentially saying "By magic unknown to me".