Between 19 and 23 September 2026, KRAFTON issued at least four notices on the Himass and TanVuu case. Read one at a time, each is a snapshot of a single moment. Read together, they show how KRAFTON’s position moved: what stayed constant, what changed, and what was never explained.
Every document is archived with a SHA-256 hash in the source archive.
Quick comparison
| 19 Sep | 20 Sep | 21 Sep | 23 Sep | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Channel | Kakao PUBG (repost from KRAFTON) | Kakao PUBG | Kakao PUBG | pubg.com (VI, KO) |
| Measure against players | Removed from remaining matches | + Partner status revoked | Discipline under way | Permanent bans |
| Watched others’ streams? | Not mentioned | Under investigation | — | Confirmed |
| Organizer’s admission | Standards not specific enough | Four categories of failure | Criteria, sanction levels, languages | Responsibility, internal review |
| Event status | Continuing | Day 3 cancelled | — | — |
Notice 1 — 19 September: a provisional measure
The first notice made three points:
- VIE HIMASS and TANVUU were removed from the rest of the event “to ensure fair operation”.
- Not specifying operating standards sufficiently was “the organizer’s responsibility”.
- The measure applied “within the scope of what could be done immediately” and did “not mean the matter is closed”.
The logic to note: from the very first notice, KRAFTON placed two responsibilities side by side. One sat with the organizer, whose rules were unclear. The other sat with participants, who still had to protect fairness. That “both sides at fault” structure survives to the last notice.
Notice 2 — 20 September: the most detailed account
The 20 September notice is the longest and most specific document. Five points stand out.
(a) Confirmed versus under review. The only confirmed fact was that both players “checked out-of-game information through personal stream content during Day 1”. Whether they watched others’ streams, and whether the information was used in play, remained open.
(b) An admission of wrong information before Day 2. KRAFTON wrote that when the issue first arose, it had communicated “incorrect content” about whether outside information was used, before verifying it. It had been focused on quickly settling the situation ahead of Day 2.
The notice does not say what that incorrect content was. That is an important gap, relevant to the reported sanction changes.
(c) An admission of design failure. Asia Stars was built around live streamer interaction, so organizers “did not make broadcast delay mandatory”. The rulebook also “did not specifically define” three behaviours:
- checking information via live chat;
- watching other participants’ streams;
- receiving and using out-of-game information.
(d) A denial of favouritism. KRAFTON wrote that it “never tried to close the matter to protect a particular region or participant”. That sentence tells us such accusations were circulating.
(e) Day 3 cancelled. Prize money moved to a common basis, and the Drops event was dropped with a replacement promised.
Notice 3 — 21 September: the apology
Scamany has no archived copy of this notice. As reported, KRAFTON admitted it had not adequately prepared three things:
- safeguards;
- assessment criteria;
- sanction levels.
It also admitted inconsistent Korean and Vietnamese notices, and that it had called the Korean side’s planned boycott a “withdrawal”. At the same time, it said the players’ conduct had been confirmed and discipline was under way.
The logic to note: “discipline under way” appears on 21 September, two days before the findings were published. There are two ways to read it:
- Discipline followed from the conduct already confirmed on 20 September, namely checking information through their own streams.
- The outcome was settled before the investigation finished.
Scamany weighs both readings in was the ban decided in advance?.
Notice 4 — 23 September: findings and sanctions
The final notice has four parts:
- Findings. Based on official broadcasts, participant footage, in-game data and replays, it confirms “use of out-of-game information and watching other players’ livestreams (stream sniping)”.
- KRAFTON’s standard. KRAFTON never officially permitted such conduct and applies no region-specific standard. It rejects two arguments: “it was a friendly event” and “it was allowed beforehand”.
- Sanctions. Grounds: Sections 5.10 and 5.12 and the conduct duties of professional players. Penalties: permanent account bans and permanent ineligibility, effective immediately, with a right to respond.
- KRAFTON’s responsibility. An apology for slow, inconsistent communication and support against secondary harm. It also announces an internal review of the entire process, including decision-making, with follow-up action on the staff involved under company rules.
What changed and what did not
Constant throughout:
- Participants carry responsibility for fairness even when rules are unclear.
- The organizer admits operational failure.
- There is no region-specific standard.
Changed:
- The scope of confirmed conduct: from “checked information via their own stream” (20 September) to “watched others’ livestreams and used them tactically” (23 September).
- The measure: from removal to a permanent ban.
In none of the notices:
- a player-by-player evidence chain, such as which match, which moment and which decision was affected;
- why a permanent sanction was chosen over a time-limited one;
- the content of the pre-event Discord guidance;
- what the “incorrect content” before Day 2 was.
Conclusion
Read as a sequence, KRAFTON did something many publishers do not: it separated confirmed facts from open questions and admitted operational failure publicly.
The sequence also leaves an explanatory gap between 20 and 23 September. Readers see the conclusion change but not the evidence that changed it.
That gap drives most of the controversy. A transparent response process could close it. For the differences between the Korean and Vietnamese versions, see the language comparison.