A widely shared account in Vietnam says the organizers first issued a one-year ban. After Himass and TanVuu posted apologies, it was reduced to six months, and it finally became permanent.
If true, this would matter a great deal, because it would raise the question of what justified each change. But first we need to know where the claim comes from and how reliable it is.
This is a hypothesis article. No official document records a one-year or six-month sanction.
Where the claim comes from
- It was published on the campaign site justiceforpubgvn.com, citing “several sources among Vietnam team members who took part in the tournament”.
- That site states it has no screenshots, original links or decision records confirming it.
- The official notices Scamany has archived confirm the permanent sanction and mention no other level.
On reliability: this is a second-hand account from a party with a clear position, namely a campaign site. It should not be dismissed, but it should not be treated as fact either.
One relevant official fact
KRAFTON’s 20 September notice contains a notable admission:
When the issue first arose, we communicated incorrect content… ahead of Day 2, because we focused on settling the situation quickly.
KRAFTON admits communicating something incorrect before Day 2, without saying what. That does not confirm the “one year → six months” account. It does show that at least one early message was later withdrawn.
Four explanatory scenarios
Scenario A — A provisional sanction existed and changed
Organizers told the Vietnamese team, formally or informally, about a time-limited ban. It was adjusted after the apologies, then raised after the investigation widened or under pressure.
- Consistent with: the team members’ account; KRAFTON’s admission of incorrect early communication.
- Inconsistent with: the official notices of 19 and 20 September mention only removal from the event, not any time-limited ban.
Scenario B — Confusion between sanction layers
The case involves several layers of sanction: removal from the event, loss of Partner status, account bans and competitive bans. “One year” or “six months” could belong to another layer, such as Partner status or a provisional measure, and have been merged into “the ban”.
- Consistent with: the complexity of the measures and the information passing through many hands.
- Inconsistent with: no source gives durations for those layers.
Scenario C — Informal discussion taken as a decision
During the crisis, operations staff may have discussed possible outcomes with the team, and these were understood as decisions.
- Consistent with: KRAFTON’s own admission of hasty, inconsistent communication, and its internal review with action against individuals involved.
- Inconsistent with: there is no direct evidence yet.
Scenario D — Distortion in retelling
The original account may have shifted as it passed between people and languages, especially in a heated dispute.
- Consistent with: the second-hand nature of the source.
- Inconsistent with: the specific detail “reduced after the apology”, which is not the kind of detail that tends to appear on its own.
Comparing the scenarios
| Scenario | Implication if true | Deciding documents |
|---|---|---|
| A – sanction changed | Each change needs a justification; strengthens hypotheses H2/H3 | Official letters, emails or messages to the team |
| B – layers confused | No “escalation”, only a misunderstanding | List of sanctions by layer, with durations |
| C – informal talk | An organizer process failure, not a changed decision | Communication logs, internal review results |
| D – distortion | No underlying event | Direct accounts from the people involved |
Why it matters even though unverified
If Scenario A is true, the proportionality question becomes much more urgent. The same conduct, with no new published evidence, would have gone from six months to permanent, and that would need a very specific explanation.
If B, C or D is true, spreading “one year → six months” as fact is fuelling grievance without a basis.
Because the two directions lead to such different conclusions, the responsible approach is to keep it labelled as unverified and ask for documents.
Who can clarify it?
- The Vietnamese team, the players’ organisations and the players: publish any official letter or message they received, if one exists.
- KRAFTON: say what the “incorrect content” before Day 2 was, and publish the outcome of its internal review.
If you hold primary documents, send them via our contact page. We will verify them and update the source archive.