I'm not qualified to discern the quality of most of this post, but its tone disturbed me, and I agree that I find most of the ad hominem stuff really distasteful.
Absent that, there is no ad hominem. What you have is a discussion of the personalities involved in the enterprise and a speculation as to their motives, methods and the means available to them. All of that is relevant in answering some questions which need to be asked of any job offer: Who will I be working with? Will I be a valued team member? What will the team and workplace dynamics be? How do these people operate?
The term ad hominem means a specific thing. It's not a blanket term for "some people were spoken of in an unflattering way." If you don't like that some personal qualities are discussed and conclusions drawn therefrom, say that you simply dislike discussions which include value judgments about the actions of specific people.
Hell, we don't even really know what the compensation is for this position. Could be they are willing to pay upwards of 200k. Am I just missing where they are saying this will pay terribly? I saw they are not "money oriented" which is probably true since they have more of it than they can really reason about. Better, they have front row access to what they dreamed about as kids. They don't need the money anymore.
I think something a lot of folks from companies that aren't 20ish people are missing is that they are effectively auditioning someone to come be part of a very close knit crew. Imagine the postings for a recurring role on {insert popular tv show}.
It's pretty upfront about the fact that if working for Penny Arcade isn't a huge plus point for you, you're not the person for the job. That's supposed to be part of your compensation.
Don't ignore that second sentence. If you're interpreting this section as anything other than "shit pay", you're being wildly optimistic.