One suspicion circulates in several versions: “the sanction was decided in advance.” But “in advance” can mean very different things, and each meaning is plausible to a different degree.
This article splits the suspicion into three hypotheses and tests each with the same structure: supporting evidence, contrary evidence, alternative explanations, and what would disprove it.
This is a hypothesis article, not a conclusion. Scamany has no inside information from KRAFTON or anyone else.
Three levels of the hypothesis
| Statement | Severity of the allegation | |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | The event was designed or arranged to remove Vietnamese players before it began | Very serious |
| H2 | The permanent sanction was settled before the investigation finished (before 23 Sep) | Moderate |
| H3 | The sanction was pushed up by outside pressure (public opinion, teams, markets) rather than evidence alone | Moderate |
H1 — “It was planned before the event”
Supporting evidence: none that is sourced. The usual arguments reason backwards from the outcome, along the lines of “two top Vietnamese players were removed, so there must have been intent”.
Contrary evidence:
- KRAFTON absorbed real costs: it cancelled Day 3 and the Drops event, had to fund a replacement event, redistributed prize money and admitted fault repeatedly. A deliberate plan would have little reason to create those costs.
- The case began with a streamer’s complaint after Day 1, not with any action by the organizer.
- Both players belong to the PNC 2025 title roster, a product of KRAFTON’s own esports ecosystem. Removing them brings no obvious benefit to that ecosystem.
Simpler alternative: a loosely controlled event design (no mandatory delay) met a violation, and the crisis that followed was handled in a hurry.
What would disprove H1: almost all current evidence already cuts against it. H1 would need internal documents showing pre-event intent, and nothing points to such documents.
Assessment: very weak. Scamany discourages spreading H1 without evidence.
H2 — “The sanction was settled before the findings”
Supporting evidence:
- On 21 September KRAFTON said “discipline is under way”, two days before the findings were published.
- The 20 September notice admits “incorrect content” was communicated before Day 2 in the rush to settle things. What that content was has never been disclosed.
- The unverified account of a 1-year → 6-month → permanent sequence would, if true, mean at least one sanction level was floated before the official findings.
Contrary evidence:
- On 19 September KRAFTON explicitly called the removal provisional and said it “does not mean the matter is closed”.
- On 20 September KRAFTON listed the open questions and promised “not to treat unverified matters as fact”.
- The scope of the confirmed conduct changed between 20 and 23 September, from “checked information via their own stream” to “watched others’ streams and used them tactically”. If the outcome had been fixed, there would be no need to widen the finding. The change is more consistent with an investigation that genuinely continued.
- “Discipline under way” may simply mean the process had started, based on the conduct already confirmed on 20 September. Starting a process is not the same as fixing the penalty.
Alternative: in many organisations, an early working view of the likely sanction is refined once evidence is complete. That is not necessarily “pre-decided” in a sinister sense.
What would disprove H2: dated decision records, meeting minutes or letters to the teams showing the permanent sanction was chosen after the evidence review on 22–23 September.
What would strengthen H2: a document sent to the players or teams before 23 September specifying a sanction level.
Assessment: untestable with public information. There are a few legitimate flags, but also clear contrary evidence.
H3 — “The sanction was escalated by pressure”
Supporting evidence:
- The pressure is well documented: Korea’s team skipped Day 2, Day 3 was cancelled, Vietnamese and Korean fans clashed, and KRAFTON had to address attacks.
- The 20 September notice denies “trying to close the matter to protect a particular region or participant”, which shows KRAFTON faced accusations of leniency.
- The unverified account of escalating sanction levels, if true.
Contrary evidence:
- KRAFTON cites grounds independent of the pressure: Sections 5.10 and 5.12 of the operating policy, and a higher standard for professionals.
- KRAFTON says allegations against others, including non-Vietnamese participants, were reviewed under the same standard.
Alternative: pressure may have made the investigation faster and more thorough without making the sanction harsher. The permanent sanction may also reflect KRAFTON’s existing view of how professionals should be treated.
What would disprove H3: a public precedent showing KRAFTON gave the same sanction for similar conduct under low pressure, or a published rationale for the sanction level that is independent of the context.
Assessment: moderately plausible, but untestable without decision records. The response process and KRAFTON’s internal review could answer it.
Summary
| Hypothesis | Support | Contrary | Testable? | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 – arranged before the event | None | Many, strong | Largely contradicted already | Very weak |
| H2 – settled before findings | A few flags | Clear | Needs decision records | Untestable for now |
| H3 – escalated by pressure | Documented pressure | Independent grounds | Needs records and precedents | Moderate |
What would settle it?
Three documents would answer almost everything above:
- The disciplinary decision record, with dates and the reasoning for the sanction level.
- The “incorrect content” communicated before Day 2.
- The results of KRAFTON’s promised internal review, which covers its “decision-making process”.
Until those appear, the reasonable approach is to keep questions as questions. Do not turn H2 or H3 into accusations, and do not spread H1.