True, but i would further argue that just because the system is not available in the game that does not disqualify it as a valid system. They are missing a whole bunch of systems that i would consider essential.
If one can jerry rig the existing system functionality to enhance its performance to the level of what is a contextually congruent system then i would say its fine - e.g a pip macro.
Of course defining the demarcation between legitimate and illegitimate is no easy task and often simply relies on the morals of the individual at the controls.
Generally agreed on all points.
Which is why I don't really complain about pip macros, even though I won't use them; you can get most combinations of pips with three simple inputs or less, only certain half-pip allocations taking more than four. All of these are simple, hard to screw up, and easy to correct.
I'm still putting things like complex module pane automation in my 'cheat' category, because many of these functions take complex inputs and have both high potential for screwing up under pressure, and major consequences for screwing up. It takes half a second to correct a bad pip placement. However, if you accidentally repair, disable, or change priorities of the wrong module mid-fight, that could easily change the entire outcome...resulting in the loss of a ship, or having to do without that module until it reboots (and in the case of shields that have been disabled or lost power, regenerates), expending AMFU ammo unnecessarily, or wasting time rooting through the modules pane while under fire to see what you did wrong. Automating this is dangerously close to having a bot fly the ship for you, IMO.
If anything, complex module management is opportunity for a future 'engineer' crew member to pull their weight.