As this question points out, a big proportion of questions on this site get closed, more so than on other Stack Exchange sites.
I would argue that the current restrictions on questions are arbitrary and limit the potential and usefulness of the site.
What-to-say/what-to-do questions are natural
Many people have a specific social situation in their life in mind and want advice on what to say or do in that situation. This is one of the most common and natural reasons people want interpersonal skills advice, but is considered off-topic on this site.
On other Stack Exchange sites, people post questions about specific problems that they encounter and get specific solutions: e.g., on Stack Overflow, someone will post a specific programming problem and often get a snippet of code as an answer. On English Language & Usage, someone may post a phrase or sentence and get corrections on it as an answer.
Getting help on specific responses in specific situations is helpful because:
- Other people might encounter a similar situation, search for it, and find that a past question applies to their situation.
- People generalize solutions for specific situations into more general skills by recognizing patterns. Figuring out what to say to person A in situation X will build my intuition for what to say to person B in situation Y.
In contrast, requiring questions to "focus on how to generally write or decide what to say so that you can tailor them to your situation" is an unnatural restriction. It would be like banning code snippets on Stack Overflow, which would greatly limit the usefulness of the site.
Other questions get closed for not providing enough detail. Users have to thread the needle between the generality and specificity requirements, which can be confusing and unintuitive.