My line of thought is that you can't be mad at one ship for using it's point defense at it's intended role only, while you can be mad at a ship for using point defense for "melee combat". Especially if you see a missile carrier bruising it out in the middle of the frigates (of course assuming steady AI). There are plenty of substitutes for PD weapons in offensive role. Consider the Lasher, Light Autocannons can suffice the need for offensive PD, but this cannot be done the other way around. At a range of 700, you could say is pretty "steadylike". Not 300 from Light Dual Machinegun, not 1000 for the missiles (or medium ballistics), just right in the middle.
Now, let's say you want to change it's behavior to use it's point deffense agressively, doesn't it makes more sense to add an agressive officer? And isn't it more steadylike to have a steady officer be predictable to use it's weapons for their intended role? Let's say, if you wanted an unofficered frigates to engage in a particular set of rules, you can just adjust it's weapons. Put PD on it to act as an PD frigate, or put designated offensive weapons to act offensively. You gain the desirable outcome by just adjusting the loadout. Now if you wanted it to be both PD and offensive, then you put an officer at it.
"For example, consider a frigate armed with machine guns, vulcans, and swarmers: it should absolutely be trying to close to PD-weapon range, and shouldn't try to hang out at missile range." I think it's rather the oposite. If you armed a steady AI with PD, it is expected of it to act as PD. If you didn't, why not just put light autocannons in it? Unless of course you wanted it to use it's PD agressively, huh? huh? See what I did here? Anyway, this game is an expression of Alex creativity and thus I will not get into the way of his intended design. Just somthing I think is worth a to keep a note on.
Sorry if this conversation was had before.