First, I agree that I'd prefer in the end a BGS matching mission system. So on same page there.
But for this specific rebuttal, you're taking a min case and justifying a max argument (in the min/max scheme of things). If it were only boondock out of way outposts with nothing going for it but mining scant rocks, many commanders wouldn't be that surprised there isn't tons of passenger missions at that station. But you're conveniently ignoring the huge number of more viable scenarios than the out of way outpost - e.g. huge orbital station in boom system, war system etc where you'd expect tons of fleeing passengers.
Ultimately I'd like BGS to reflect mission state and type. But we don't have that, period. What we have is in majority of cases and majority of stations, a severe mismatch between what you are wanting to do, geared to do, and what total RNG offers on the board.
And if by chance you do see the missions you'd like to do - that MATCHES what common sense but BGS does not sync with as far as that system state, big station, etc - then almost always you don't get offered enough of them.
The guy you quote replied to has it right in spirit if perhaps not in exact wording - offer us players the choice of what general categories of missions we're looking for rather than the random monkey flinging scat on the wall to see what sticks approach currently done. And if over time that choice of display is further refined by what BGS says ought to be offered and in what volume, then awesome - love that even more.
But at present we're starved for missions matching what activity we'd like to do and it's pure RNG whether you have a nice play session or not when talking about mission related activity. (or activities that used to have decent # of missions you can pickup like mining but now it's like a rare unicorn to see a mining mission offered in enough numbers to matter)
