The quote of Theymos in the OP is pretty clear cut, but in reality any stated intention isn't going to stop people from using the trust system outside of what might be the intended scope.

The trust system is not policed by moderators and Theymos. In my opinion, rightly so. We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.

How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.

On the above note, I think that scrapping the 'red tag' and establishing flags was a step to the right direction. It's no longer possible for a single member that is included in default trust to ruin somebody's reputation in a snap. Flags require popular support and are focused on evidence rather than opinions. In my opinion, this solves the issue of 'game of throwns' styles spats. A single negative rating, no matter how influential a user might be, doesn't do much on its own. Now, for the troubles to stop, we need a change in mind.
Theymos stating the intention even more coherently wouldn't actively change anything.