AlmostNotsuper

Alright, I re-read most of this thread, and here are my conclusions.

It seems I confused you for someone else. That mention of discord and bugles was my indirect way of asking if you were that person (and poking fun at that person, if indeed you were them), and you confirmed that you are not. People use similar names on the internet, you know? This assumption was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for it.

However, that assumption was only the basis of one minor supporting claim (specifically, that you dislike leeches), if you can even call it that. And you later confirmed it as correct anyway. As I said, I was primarily responding to what you've said in this thread, the entire time.

You can assume that this is not the case if you want to; but to that, I'd say that you don't know me, you don't know what I'm thinking, and this (interpretation of and/or response to, what I'm saying) is a roundabout attempt at character assassination - basically what you keep saying, in case you missed it. It goes both ways. The fact that you claimed so first, does not make you immune to the approach; in fact, to me it appears that you were fishing for opportunities to make such claims the entire time. Why is it gaslighting when I point out what I perceive as your offenses against me, but not when you do so?

You cannot just label your posts 'clarification' or 'dismissal' and expect me not to reply, when in those posts you continue to make claims about me and responses to my points (when convenient).

Your claims:
"you're just here to stir up some drama by attacking people on unrelated things" - All that I talked about, was based on what you've said in this thread, except for one minor instance, which has been addressed already. Had you not included the last part, I might've agreed with you; though even in that case, the word 'drama' is a bit too vague for me, and implies personal conflict. I just wanted to debate; but I didn't count on you taking everything I said personally, and sucking all of the fun out of it.

"provide no evidence for the claims" - Again, what claims? Any claims I made about you were pertinent to the subject, and were only specific assumptions about what you might think about certain things being discussed - and each was made in an obvious, upfront way, so as to invite you to clarify, without any attachment to any other point I made. An honest opponent would have either clarified their position, or ignored the point. You, on the other hand, claimed that, because I'd made a claim about what you thought on the subject, I was making claims of a personal nature and passing them off as arguments (ad hominem). Since when are ones thoughts on a subject, not pertinent to ones position on the subject?

Here's the definition of ad hominem, by the way. Might as well get any lingering semantic issues out of the way:
"dodge any accountability for your false accusations" - I have acknowledged and defended everything you've taken issue with.

"drag my reputation through the mud to proclaim some sort of intellectual or moral superiority"/"you're here to derail and to grandstand" - I dunno about that 'drag your reputation through the mud' part, and I wouldn't say I was here to derail either. Those underlined parts do sound about right though. =3=; Who doesn't grandstand? This is a public forum; if you're saying anything of substance, chances are you're doing one of those things - and it's FUN every now and then. I can show some examples of you doing the same thing, here and in other (recent) threads, if you'd like.

"turn this into a mudslinging contest for a low form of entertainment" - Mudlsinging contest? As I said, I never intended to attack you personally. You made it personal, at every turn. low form of entertainment?...I can't deny that one.

"you lie, fabricate circumstance" - Not to 'bait you into replying', but you show me an instance where I lied, and I'll almost certainly show you an instance where you misinterpreted what I said. Or where I made an honest mistake. I think it's funny that I dangle the slightest hope that I made a blatant lie, in front of you, and you immediately jumped on it. Why would I claim that you did things that I know you're going to deny, AND which are supposedly verifiable? Do you think I'm that stupid? Would it be 'ad hominem' if you answered that?

I could remove any parts of my posts that could be construed as personal attacks (I may do so, since the parts of my posts that you take issue with are all preserved as quotes in your posts), and most of the substance would remain, whereas if I removed the parts of your posts claiming that I've done so (attacking my character, by claiming that all I've done is attacked yours), there would be little-to-nothing left of every reply after your first. Who is truly using ad hominem here?

One last thing: It looks like you either see enemies everywhere, or rely on making anyone who disagrees with you look like someone preying on your personal feelings about your past. I can't actually tell which one is true, but I advise you to avoid drawing attention to the fact that you have personal stake in a topic, if you don't want to talk about the personal aspects. The closest I came to saying anything truly personal about you, was "I know you probably take it personally that I have a problem with people who did this", in my first post, which is not an ad hominem AND which you casually brushed off - a reasonable reaction. Did you think crying 'ad hominem' could keep me from mentioning anything like that anyway, if I'd wanted to? And even if I had brought up personal details of yours, who would've cared? Many players use alts to get extra chests nowadays - I'm probably in the minority here. If you had a genuine personal issue related to this discussion other than a possible personal use of alts for personal gain, then I have no clue what it even could have been.