It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic or facetious here, but I would like some clarification on this.
Scam accusations are currently enforced in the following manner:
1) The accuser posts a thread outlining their accusation and supporting evidence in the Scam Accusations board
2) Users discuss the issue, and frequently more supporting or refuting evidence is found
3) One or several users (which may include DT members) may tag the accused provided the evidence is sufficient
Now let's say I find an ICO who is advertising with a fake team - using made up names, stock photos, and fictitious LinkedIn profiles with fake qualifications, job histories and business links. In my opinion, they are breaking the covenant of good faith by being dishonest with their potential customers/victims. I tag them as such. You disagree with my judgement and make a post saying as such, stating that we need evidence of theft to have occurred before a negative tag can be left. (This is just an example - we could substitute in 100 difference scenarios here.)
Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?
Edit: Spelling