In its 21 September apology, KRAFTON admitted a problem publishers rarely name: its Korean and Vietnamese notices were inconsistent. It also admitted describing the Korean side’s planned boycott as a “withdrawal”.
For an event spanning six regions and several languages, translation drift is not a mere technicality. It shapes how each community understands the case.
This article compares the 23 September findings notice in its Vietnamese version and Korean version. Both are archived as raw HTML with SHA-256 hashes. The English renderings below are Scamany’s literal translations.
Difference 1: “circumstances of a violation” vs “a violation”
| Korean | Literal English | Vietnamese (in English) |
|---|---|---|
| 운영정책 위반 정황이 확인되었습니다 | Circumstances/indications of an operating-policy violation were confirmed | It was confirmed that a violation took place |
The Korean word 정황 means “circumstances” or “indications” that point toward something. It is typical of conclusions drawn from circumstantial evidence. The Vietnamese version turns this into a more direct statement: “there was a violation”.
Why it matters: Korean readers may understand the finding as drawn from an accumulation of circumstances. Vietnamese readers are more likely to read it as conduct that was clearly established. The two readings create different expectations about what evidence ought to be published.
Difference 2: “event match” vs “friendly tournament”
| Korean | Literal English | Vietnamese (in English) |
|---|---|---|
| 이번 행위가 이벤트 매치의 성격상 문제가 되지 않는 행위였다는 주장 | The argument that the conduct was not a problem given the nature of an event match | The argument that the conduct was not serious given the nature of a friendly tournament |
“Event match” and “friendly” carry different connotations. “Friendly” suggests nothing real is at stake, while the rulebook calls Asia Stars an official tournament with a USD 70,000 prize pool. This feeds directly into the showmatch-versus-official debate.
Difference 3: action against “the individuals involved” at KRAFTON
| Korean | Literal English | Vietnamese (in English) |
|---|---|---|
| 그 결과에 따라 사내 규정에 따른 후속 조치를 진행하겠습니다 | Based on the results, follow-up measures will be taken under internal rules | …follow-up action will be taken against the individuals involved under internal rules |
The Vietnamese version is more explicit that internal action targets individuals at KRAFTON. The Korean version speaks only of “follow-up measures”. Vietnamese readers therefore received more specific information about personal accountability on the publisher’s side.
Difference 4: “strict”
| Korean | Vietnamese (in English) |
|---|---|
| 유사 의혹에 대해서도 동일한 기준으로 확인 (“checked by the same standard”) | checked against the same strict standard |
The Vietnamese version adds “strict”. It is a small addition, but it lands on exactly the point most contested in Vietnam: consistency.
Where the two versions match
The core elements are identical in both versions:
- the grounds (Sections 5.10 and 5.12);
- the scope (accounts, PGC, PGS, PNC and all official events);
- immediate effect;
- the right to respond (소명 절차 / explanation process);
- the statement that no region-specific standard applies;
- the commitment to prevent secondary harm.
In other words, the legal substance of the decision does not differ. The differences are in tone, and tone shapes how each public receives the decision.
Why this matters
In a case that has already divided two fan communities, each side reads its own language:
- Korean readers see a finding based on “circumstances” at an “event match”.
- Vietnamese readers see a “confirmed” “violation” at a “friendly”.
Neither version is wrong about the decision itself. But tonal differences can amplify the feeling that “the other side is treated differently”. That is the very communication failure KRAFTON admitted on 21 September.
Lessons for multilingual communication
This section is Scamany’s analysis, not a KRAFTON recommendation:
- Designate an authoritative original. Translations should state which version prevails if they differ.
- Lock key terms. Words such as “confirmed”, “circumstances”, “official” and “friendly” need consistent renderings.
- Publish simultaneously. Notices that reach communities at different times leave room for rumour.
Conclusion
The 23 September notice is consistent in its decision but differs in tone in at least four places. None changes the sanction. Together, they help explain why two communities can read the same event in two different ways.
See also the full notice sequence and the community impact.