The 23 September 2026 notice contains one short but important sentence:
“However, both players have the right to go through the explanation process for the above measures in accordance with the procedures established in esports.”
The Korean version uses 소명 절차, meaning an explanation or vindication procedure. This article asks three questions: what the right is, what the team is asking for, and what a fair response process would need to contain.
A tension in the documents
Section 1 of the PUBG Asia Stars 2026 rulebook states:
“All decisions of the organizer are final and not subject to any complaint or claim for damages.”
Yet the sanction notice opens a right to respond. The most reasonable explanation is scope. The sanction is not confined to the event: it covers account bans and all official events. That places it within KRAFTON’s general esports governance rather than a single event’s rulebook.
The consequence is that readers do not know which procedure applies. The notice refers only to “procedures established in esports”, without citing a specific document.
What is GAM × TE asking for?
Per VTC News, GAM × TE, TanVuu’s organisation:
- Opposes the sanction;
- Asks for a response process with clear criteria and deadlines;
- Asks for a proportionality review;
- Asks for support to remedy harm.
Read it accurately: these are the team’s requests, not a decision to reduce or overturn anything. Scamany has not seen the team’s original statement, nor any response from Himass or Anyone’s Legend.
What does a fair response process need?
Disciplinary processes in sport and esports generally turn on five elements. We use them as a neutral yardstick, not to claim KRAFTON has failed any of them.
| Element | Meaning | Publicly known? |
|---|---|---|
| Specific notice of the allegation | Which conduct, which match, which moment | Only a general description |
| Access to evidence | Seeing the footage, data and replays relied on | Unclear |
| Opportunity to respond | Submitting explanations and documents (e.g. Discord logs) | Right exists; procedure unclear |
| Independent reviewer | Someone other than the original decision-maker | Unclear |
| Deadlines and reasoned decision | Knowing when and why | Unclear; GAM × TE is asking for it |
Why the process matters to everyone
For the players: it is the only route to changing an open-ended sanction.
For KRAFTON: a transparent process is the best way to close the explanatory gap between 20 and 23 September. If the evidence is solid, publishing it (redacted where necessary) strengthens the decision. If the process is opaque, any outcome, upheld or reduced, will be doubted.
For the community: the conflict between Vietnamese and Korean fans grew mainly out of missing information. Per the 20 September notice, KRAFTON has already had to address attacks and secondary harm.
What to watch
- Whether KRAFTON publishes the procedure, the deadlines and who reviews the case.
- Whether the players make direct statements. So far there is only Inven’s account.
- Whether the outcome is reasoned, particularly on the choice of a permanent sanction.
- The results of the internal review KRAFTON promised, which includes its decision-making process.
Status at the time of writing
As of 24 September 2026, no source had recorded a decision on the review request. Note that the right to respond does not suspend the sanction; the bans have applied since 23 September.
Scamany will update this article and the case timeline as documents emerge. If you are an involved party and wish to respond, use our contact page.