>>Similarly, all personal attacks are not properly ad hominem arguements. Sometimes the issue actually is the person's character or behavior and to bring it up may not be useful, but it is not an ad hominem attack (which again is a specific term regarding logic).<<

In law, a standard phrase is "Bias is always relevant," or "Credibility is always relevant." Therefore the frequent admissibility of prior convictions relevant to moral corruption or credibility. This is not quite your point, though. It seems to be no more than "legal ad hominem."

Or one might say "You should understand where he's coming from, since both of his parents died in that war." "Constructive ad hominem" ?