The way I would've handled that particular case, is if a single copy exists outside of a duper's acc, and if it was not sliced by one of the dupers, then it's a legit item, and whatever oid the duper has on their acc is not.
But that's not the case I'm talking about. I have been specifically trying to explain one really important case that had most of the impact on innocent players and can be clearly distinguished from dupes. I'll try to describe it step by step.
1. Crafter makes a component schem (say, advanced rifle barrels, or advanced weapon stocks)
2. Crafter produces a bunch of component crates (compcrate1, compcrate2) from that schem in their factory.
3. Crafter makes a number of final products from those, say gun1, gun2, gun3. All is fine so far.
4. Duper asks Crafter for a bunch of components because they're setting up their own WS and making perfect components with all amazings is effort.
5. Crafter makes a few more crates (compcrate3, compcrate4) of that comp and gives them to the duper.
6. Duper now dupes compcrate3, compcrate4. Goes on to make dupegun1, dupegun2 etc.
7. Crafter continues to produce items from the same factory run and compcrate2, possibly a new compcrate5: gun4, gun5…
8. Your tool now flags all items produced with that crafted component no matter where and when they were made. Even gun1, gun2, gun3 get flagged retroactively because the tool apparently does not distinguish once a single component from an entire factory run is duped at any point in time.
The same goes for stacks of looted components where one of them got duped at a later date.
Of course the most reasonable way to handle this would have been to just leave things alone. If items never passed through a duper's account, especially if those items are unimportant in every way, like unimpressive weapons, any kind of clothing, resources, etc. You did have the judiciousness to recognize that deleting houses, duped or not, makes no sense at all and creates an undue impact on innocent players. Same goes for the rest.
Unfortunately doing it the way it was done amplified the impact on the community, instead of minimizing it.The goals where: (1) Minimalize impact of cheaters on the community;
