You are free to include the past, nobody asked you to ignore it.Quote:
Ofc i am evaluating the that exists in it's current day, the problem is that the past in regards to Division isn't something i can overlook, i will not recommend or say any product that have the same past is legit, simply because i think so many of the issues aren't okay, ofc it has affected users in the past too.
So no i cannot "only" look at the current state Division is in, i have to look at the past Division had too, that's to get the "full picture" on Division.
And ofc you are welcome to have your own opinion, and your customers/users are also welcome to have their own opinion, but these "legit & scam" lists are supposed to show the "full picture", and not just the current state of things.
What we have pointed out from the start is that you don't examine the past of every provider equally. Division gets a microscope while other providers with detections, scandals, and customer issues don't receive even a fraction of attention. That is why this doesn't feel like "showing the full picture", it feels like controlling a narrative against one provider.
If your list evaluated every provider's past, present, and detection history with the same intensity and the same standards, there wouldn't be anything to argue about. But the level of attention you apply is not consistent across your board. That is why we keep looping in our discussion on Xenos forum, once again sorry Xenos for all of this drama.
That said, you're entitled to run your list however you want, and we are not here to convince you to change it.
Division Reputation today is based on the actual customer experience and the 9 months of UD performance on our current systems.
Users see that firsthand and tend to consistently stay loyal as we can tell by our returning customer rate.
You've made your stance, we have made ours... nothing more to add.
This ends here, have a good day.