Is a prospective boss with a history of quick hirings and firings a "proceed with caution" or "do not proceed"? , which was recently closed as too opinion based, was intended as a narrow question. One prospective employer hired two or three people and then fired them very quickly, taking a nasty view of them. What I wanted to know was, as I explicitly stated, from a human resources perspective, is working with him a "proceed with caution" or a nonstarter?
The comments broaden the question appreciably. One person broadened it to include whether I was competent for job title X, and my attempt to say, "I asked question A, not question B. I would like your answer to A, and if I want input on question B, I will raise that in a separate question." But it failed; the question was now both whether the boss was a nonstarter from an HR perspective and whether my competencies matched the position. And other things retrofitted my question to be in an elastic sense more about "Should I take job Y," which was off limits.
What, if anything, could I have done to retain focus on what is now closed as a too opinion-based question? I asked a question about a very narrow topic, but it seems to have been subject to a minor brainstorm, and that brainstorm seemed to pave the way to go from my explicit, narrow intent to be more open-ended.
What would be helpful in this case? Should I have just said "I am interested in knowing whether, from a human resources perspective, being hired after a boss has quickly hired and fired two or three other programmers and has nasty things to say about them, is a nonstarter or proceed with caution; if I have other questions, I will bring them up in separate notes?" The closing of the question as opinion-based seems like I wasn't the only person who didn't like the open-ended "Should I take job X?" question the discussion turned to.