The words personal attack, character assassination has been bandied about in our chess circle. So lets try to define those terms. If there is clarity on this then things cannot get so twisted around.
A personal attack is one where no matter what one person says it is attacked. There is no merit based decisions. No judgement and no reasoning. These are hate based decisions.
So if that person does a training program to support the juniors, we will invent lies and slander. If he talks about competitor analysis we will find ways to distort the message. If he does a Thematic that is beneficial to the stronger players we will ask for a boycott. Even when we know he is doing the right thing.
One organiser/association/player can make every transgression, to the point of going against its own constitution/rules and we will close a blind eye and we will book another for the most minor infractions.
Personal attacks are not issue based. It operates via the use of fear and unreasonable attacks on a person irrespective of right and wrong.
Character Assassination. Now we may name a person. Is that character assassination? Is it character assassination if we say this person did this wrong thing. But if he does the right thing we equally give him the credit. Or is it really issue based with examples? Both good and bad.
Think on this and see where personal attacks are made and where justifiable criticism is made. We have plenty of examples.
Personal attacks and character assassinations are usually made to silence the truth.