First off, we are trying to do a better job at making people feel more welcome here, though we are not perfect.

If no such site exists or is not known, then your site is the best shot the person has, and banning the question is not productive.

I disagree with this. We try to have a well defined scope for our site. Just because no other site exists for which a question would be on topic does not mean our site is automatically the one it should be on. The scope of the site is determined in a few places, 1) the help center, 2) here on meta using allowed-questions, and 3) by using the mechanisms available to users such as marking questions as off-topic and placing them on hold (as was done with your question).

Putting questions on hold (not banning them) is very productive. It helps the community define the scope of the site. In many cases, as a moderator, I try to wait for the community to decide. So I wait until there are at least 3 hold votes already before casting my super-vote. If, however, a question is blatantly off-topic (specifically the type of question has been discussed on meta or is in the help center), I have no problem just casting the first and final hold vote.

First off, we are trying to do a better job at making people feel more welcome here, though we are not perfect.

If no such site exists or is not known, then your site is the best shot the person has, and banning the question is not productive.

I disagree with this. We try to have a well defined scope for our site. Just because no other site exists for which a question would be on topic does not mean our site is automatically the one it should be on. The scope of the site is determined in a few places, 1) the help center, 2) here on meta using allowed-questions, and 3) by using the mechanisms available to users such as marking questions as off-topic and placing them on hold (as was done with your question).

Putting questions on hold (not banning them) is very productive. It helps the community define the scope of the site. In many cases, as a moderator, I try to wait for the community to decide. So I wait until there are at least 3 hold votes already before casting my super-vote. If, however, a question is blatantly off-topic (specifically the type of question has been discussed on meta or is in the help center), I have no problem just casting the first and final hold vote.

First off, we are trying to do a better job at making people feel more welcome here, though we are not perfect.

If no such site exists or is not known, then your site is the best shot the person has, and banning the question is not productive.

I disagree with this. We try to have a well defined scope for our site. Just because no other site exists for which a question would be on topic does not mean our site is automatically the one it should be on. The scope of the site is determined in a few places, 1) the help center, 2) here on meta using allowed-questions, and by using the mechanisms available to users such as marking questions as off-topic and placing them on hold (as was done with your question).

Putting questions on hold (not banning them) is very productive. It helps the community define the scope of the site. In many cases, as a moderator, I try to wait for the community to decide. So I wait until there are at least 3 hold votes already before casting my super-vote. If, however, a question is blatantly off-topic (specifically the type of question has been discussed on meta or is in the help center), I have no problem just casting the first and final hold vote.

First off, we are trying to do a better job at making people feel more welcome here, though we are not perfect.

If no such site exists or is not known, then your site is the best shot the person has, and banning the question is not productive.

I disagree with this. We try to have a well defined scope for our site. Just because no other site exists for which a question would be on topic does not mean our site is automatically the one it should be on. The scope of the site is determined in a few places, 1) the help center, 2) here on meta using allowed-questions, and 3) by using the mechanisms available to users such as marking questions as off-topic and placing them on hold (as was done with your question).

Putting questions on hold (not banning them) is very productive. It helps the community define the scope of the site. In many cases, as a moderator, I try to wait for the community to decide. So I wait until there are at least 3 hold votes already before casting my super-vote. If, however, a question is blatantly off-topic (specifically the type of question has been discussed on meta or is in the help center), I have no problem just casting the first and final hold vote.