The main thing is consistency. If you're going to engage in mob tactics, then don't whine about how the other side engages in mob tactics.
That's a ridiculous oversimplification. A lot of human moral choices can be described as variations on the prisoner's dilemma, which inherently rejects a one size fits all response. It's about trust, rewards, and punishments, but the decisions are based on past behavior and not made in a vacuum. You can default to trusting, or default to not trusting, and there can be a complex series of conditions about when you punish or forgive, but the essential idea is cooperation and fair play is the best solution to a wide range of problems, but
only if it's mutual. It's most commonly expressed in terms of individual decisions, but it's also valid at the group level. So if you decide a group is untrustworthy, then you
should treat them as untrustworthy. There is nothing wrong with engaging fairly with those who engage fairly with you, and punishing those who have proven they will not.
If a group consistently uses unfair tactics, using the same tactics against them and
and complaining about their use of those tactics is a rational response. Because the goal isn't punishment, it's cooperation. Bad actors need to be punished, but they should know
why they're being punished so they have the chance to remedy their behavior. And by making the complaint public, others may decide the bad actors merit punishment, and other potential bad actors are warned of the consequences.