You talking about the corrupt mods who have a different set of rules for themselves and their friends versus everyone else Invictus?
You hit multiple players multiple times and then report them for coordinating when they kill you. Everything has potential consequences and you were fairly served yours.
Moderating/GMing is a hard job, but cooperation is either against the rules or it isn't. Just because a player is being a __subjective__ poop-beast by attacking humans doesn't mean that those who mete vigilante justice are in the right.
Relying on an in-game mob to break __documented__ rules when players break __undocumented__ rules is an untenable position.
If there is to be a rule that says "Players are not protected from dogpiling if they attack Human players more than once." Some kind of fix and/or documentation is needed. (There also needs to be a better definition of the "poop-beast" behavior, or else you end up with something like the definition of Obscenity.)
In code, a fix could be to label Bots and Humans as such, and then mark the poop-beast player (person who has breaks the "don't attack Humans 'too much' " rule) as an Outlaw of some kind. (Interesting thought about that approach: the vigilantes in this example also get flagged as Outlaws.)
Another fix in code could be to disallow pvp to create a pve/"netting" server.
Fixes outside of code probably involve more transparency to the deletion/banning process. This would let folks start to see precedence and help establish expectations and consequences.
TLDR; Do not claim in-game rule-violating conduct as valid corrective action for non-rule violating conduct. And, moderating is hard.