I want to clear up a few things because the way Division is being framed right now doesn’t match reality or the standards used for other providers on the list.
The “multiple detections” are the same detection counted over and over.
Whoever logged the dates clearly watched the ban-rate day by day and marked every delayed ban as a new “detection.”
Any provider that gets detected will have delayed bans for days or weeks after the first wave. That is 100% normal, not multiple separate detections, and shows the owner of the list is uneducated.
If that same measurement method was used for every provider, their detection history would look just like ours (and many much worse).
The list isn’t using the same standard across all products.
For Division, isolated user reports suddenly count as fact.
But when Chudvision got detected, it took many people repeatedly telling the list owner before the status was finally updated.
If the list is “based on users’ experience,” it needs to be applied consistently, not selectively.
The rumor about a “malicious panel/tool” has nothing to do with Division.
We have never done anything malicious, and we never will.
The craziest part is that the actual provider involved in that situation is still listed on his list while Division is the one labeled for it. That alone shows that the narrative is not neutral.
The Discord word-filtering situation is being exaggerated.
Yes, words like “ban/detected” were filtered temporarily, but that was done by one staff member without approval and that person is no longer on the team. Acting like this was some company-wide plan is unfair and inaccurate.
Longevity is never mentioned.
Division is now one of the oldest providers still active on that list (May of 2023 and still going).
If the list actually reflected user history objectively, surviving years of updates and banwaves would matter, but only negative framing is highlighted.
To be clear: we aren’t asking for favoritism.
We’re asking for equal standards across the board.
If detection tracking is based on actual detections, if user feedback is applied consistently, and if rumors aren’t presented as fact only when it involves Division, then the list becomes meaningful again.
Right now, the way info is displayed makes it very obvious that Division is treated differently than the rest.
Not to mention, they did not specify what they considered detected. The ban percentage is percent, the amount of users causes that to fluctuate.
In summary, we are getting punished relentlessly for attempting to be as transparent to our customers which no one other cheat has done in the past.
I highly suggest you scroll through our discord vouches, you will see endless positive ones and even the negative ones as we NEVER remove any vouch.
edit:
Not to mention, he has two of our rebranded providers listed as trusted / undetected, while KNOWING they are Division backend supported / coded by us.
Based on the way his current list is tier, the long term providers are going to be the ones who have the worst trust.
The “multiple detections” are the same detection counted over and over.
Whoever logged the dates clearly watched the ban-rate day by day and marked every delayed ban as a new “detection.”
Any provider that gets detected will have delayed bans for days or weeks after the first wave. That is 100% normal, not multiple separate detections, and shows the owner of the list is uneducated.
If that same measurement method was used for every provider, their detection history would look just like ours (and many much worse).
The list isn’t using the same standard across all products.
For Division, isolated user reports suddenly count as fact.
But when Chudvision got detected, it took many people repeatedly telling the list owner before the status was finally updated.
If the list is “based on users’ experience,” it needs to be applied consistently, not selectively.
The rumor about a “malicious panel/tool” has nothing to do with Division.
We have never done anything malicious, and we never will.
The craziest part is that the actual provider involved in that situation is still listed on his list while Division is the one labeled for it. That alone shows that the narrative is not neutral.
The Discord word-filtering situation is being exaggerated.
Yes, words like “ban/detected” were filtered temporarily, but that was done by one staff member without approval and that person is no longer on the team. Acting like this was some company-wide plan is unfair and inaccurate.
Longevity is never mentioned.
Division is now one of the oldest providers still active on that list (May of 2023 and still going).
If the list actually reflected user history objectively, surviving years of updates and banwaves would matter, but only negative framing is highlighted.
To be clear: we aren’t asking for favoritism.
We’re asking for equal standards across the board.
If detection tracking is based on actual detections, if user feedback is applied consistently, and if rumors aren’t presented as fact only when it involves Division, then the list becomes meaningful again.
Right now, the way info is displayed makes it very obvious that Division is treated differently than the rest.
Not to mention, they did not specify what they considered detected. The ban percentage is percent, the amount of users causes that to fluctuate.
In summary, we are getting punished relentlessly for attempting to be as transparent to our customers which no one other cheat has done in the past.
I highly suggest you scroll through our discord vouches, you will see endless positive ones and even the negative ones as we NEVER remove any vouch.
edit:
Not to mention, he has two of our rebranded providers listed as trusted / undetected, while KNOWING they are Division backend supported / coded by us.
Based on the way his current list is tier, the long term providers are going to be the ones who have the worst trust.
