If someone's accusing me in a vague and overbroad manner, I first ask them to define the situation and what I supposedly "did." What one thing is to me may mean something else to another person, so we have to be on the same page so that there is no room for miscommunication. I then begin to split hairs. I'm being accused of action Z when I actually did X and Y. An example of this thought process would be: Did I technically "say" something negative against this person? No, I used body language to convey my opinion or my lack of actually "saying" something makes a statement in itself. So their accusation is technically wrong, and I do not have to offer any more information than that. People want certain answers, never thinking that there may be a valid response other than what they are looking for. Why should I direct them to the right answer if they can't figure it out themselves? In a way, I've effectively sidestepped the issue.

If someone is saying more specific things such as "You did this" or "You did that," and there is no proof, as long as I keep denying it until I'm blue in the face, they can think whatever they want because for the record I didn't do it. If the person keeps pursuing the matter, they look like a crazy idiot and people are more inclined to believe that I certainly didn't do it. In other cases, I'm pretty proud to own up to my actions. I'm considered ballsy and can be pretty blunt. "Yeah I did it and this is why." I find it takes the momentum out of their argument since the other person may be geared up for a confrontation. A denial would only blow up the situation. Once owning up to said act, I then enlist my diplomatic powers to sugarcoat the intentions I had. It it's not worth it, then I obviously stand by the truth of my actions.