tl;dr Yes, more stuff should be closed off topic.

There is no design, everyone votes (or not) as they see fit. 

Far too often people ask questions and their basic understanding is way below that which you would expect of someone who is a professional system administrator. I think we tend too much to the inclusive and pander<sup>**1**</sup> way too much to those who are clearly outside the scope of the site even if their question may be about some ‘server’ related issue. 

The boundary between what is system administration and what is not isn’t a nice clean line.  System administration is a very broad field and the name Server Fault makes the apparent scope of the site even broader. 

Neither of the questions you link to is a great fit for SF both should really be closed OT. Yours is probably a better fit for SU and the other is probably a better fit for U&L but neither should be migrated. 

I’d like to see us take a much broader view of what is Off Topic and see more down voting and closing (not migrating) of questions that are OT.

**We can’t and shouldn’t be expected to answer every ‘server’ question on the internet.**
   
<sup>**1**</sup>
Why do we pander so much to people who are outside the scope/audience/skill set for SF ? 

My view is that people are desperate for rep. [With notable exceptions][1] our voting record is very poor. This means that questions are jumped on in an attempt to gain rep rather than being looked at for quality/validity first. More voting would I believe make more people happy to sit back and take a considered view before pandering to poor/duplicate/OT questions.


  [1]: https://serverfault.com/users?tab=voters&filter=all