In mathematics, as many of us already know, generality is a good thing. We aim to prove a result as general as possible.
However sometimes generality is ambiguous and gives us no help in trying to solve a particular case - whereas there are particular approaches which are applicable and useful. One good example which comes to mind is Ramsey's theorem. In its finite case the proof is combinatorial and a bit difficult to obtain, whereas in the infinite case the proof is quite simple and one can deduce the finite case by a compactness argument. But the infinite proof gives us no intuition on how to solve the finite case on its own.
Similarly on meta we try to be broad and general, we try to ask questions which apply to a particular case at hand - but that will be useful later on in an obvious way. What is not obvious sometimes is how the particular case is different than the general case, and how to apply it.
As a result there has been several cases when the community spirit pointed that a certain action is appropriate, whereas many have also agreed that a particular case is inappropriate.
This leads to a [reasonable] question, how to find the proper amount of generality for meta posts? And when should we draw the line and post particular problems, instead of general ones?