Black-and-white photo of players Himass and TanVuu (source: justiceforpubgvn.com)

PUBG ASIA STARS 2026 / 17–23.09.2026

The case of Himass & TanVuu.

KRAFTON permanently banned two Vietnamese pros after finding they used out-of-game information at a showmatch event.

A nine-milestone timeline, checksummed original documents and each party’s position — presented neutrally so you can judge for yourself.

Ongoing
Esports · PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS
Updated: September 24, 2026

Skip to timeline Impact →

Scamany is an independent aggregator, not affiliated with PUBG, KRAFTON or any party · Visual: justiceforpubgvn.com

At a glance Updated: September 24, 2026

Current status: Permanent ban
Scope: Game accounts + all official esports events
Response / review: No decision yet
Latest milestone: 23 SEP Permanent bans and KRAFTON’s apology

CASE MILESTONE

Case timeline

Nine milestones from the 17 September match day to the 23 September 2026 sanctions. Each one links to its sources and a context file.

17 SEP
2026

Events Competition day 01 01 / 09

Day 1 takes place

WHAT HAPPENED

The dispute grew after Day 1 when Soopi complained that the Vietnamese team destroyed a revive chip and suspected they had watched a livestream for information (stream sniping). PUBG later said Himass and TanVuu checked out-of-game information through personal stream content that day.

SOURCES

Case file & context

DEFENSE / RESPONSE

Stills from Soopi-related livestream footage show her switching applications and watching the tournament stream on SOOP. The viewing is visible; the stills alone do not show whether she used that information for tactical decisions in a match.

WHAT THIS MEANS

This is when the issue arose, not when PUBG reached its final finding. The September 23 notice says similar allegations involving others were reviewed, with no additional violations requiring sanctions found.

How the dispute began

PUBG Asia Stars brought together players and streamers from six regions. Soopi complained that the Vietnamese team destroyed a chip taken from a downed player, preventing a teammate from reviving them, and suspected they watched a stream for information. Her initial complaint is distinct from PUBG's September 23 finding.

Date of the event

September 17 is the date of the relevant play. Posts, images and findings about it appeared on later dates.

19 SEP
2026

Decisions Initial decision 02 / 09

Himass and TanVuu are removed from the event

WHAT HAPPENED

In a September 19 notice reposted by Kakao PUBG from KRAFTON, organizers removed both players from the remaining matches and said the investigation would continue.

SOURCES

Case file & context

DEFENSE / RESPONSE

The notice acknowledged that organizers had not specified fairness standards clearly enough. KRAFTON described removal as an immediate operational step, not the end of the investigation.

WHAT THIS MEANS

The September 19 removal from the remaining schedule is distinct from the permanent sanctions announced after the September 23 investigation.

The players' reported explanation

Inven reports that the players said in their apologies that they had kept their personal livestream chats open, received information from viewers and understood the rules not to expressly prohibit that situation. This is their reported account, not KRAFTON's finding.

Korean team's response

The Korean team did not take part in Day 2. KRAFTON later acknowledged describing the Korean side's planned boycott as a 'withdrawal' and communicating inconsistently across parties and languages.

20 SEP
2026

Notices Official notice 03 / 09

PUBG publishes its initial findings

WHAT HAPPENED

PUBG confirms that out-of-game information was checked through personal stream content. It says it is still reviewing whether the two directly watched another participant’s stream and whether any information was used in play.

VIEW SOURCE

Kakao PUBG notice · 20 Sep (Korean)

Case file & context

DEFENSE / RESPONSE

PUBG apologized for communicating unverified information too early before Day 2, then providing updates too slowly. It said it would distinguish confirmed facts from matters still under investigation.

WHAT THIS MEANS

The 'under review' status describes September 20 only. PUBG issued later findings on September 23, so this older milestone should not be read as the current status.

Confirmed and still under review

KRAFTON confirmed the players had received out-of-game information through personal broadcast content. At the time of this notice, it was still checking whether they directly watched another participant's stream and used that information in play.

20 SEP
2026

Decisions Corrective actions 04 / 09

Corrective actions are announced

WHAT HAPPENED

PUBG says Himass and TanVuu were removed from the remaining event, some related scores were adjusted, stream delay and monitoring were increased, and their PUBG Vietnam Partner status was revoked.

VIEW SOURCE

Kakao PUBG notice · 20 Sep (Korean)

Case file & context

DEFENSE / RESPONSE

KRAFTON also accepted responsibility for insufficiently defined fairness standards and safeguards. Adding delay and monitoring addressed event operations separately from the actions against individuals.

WHAT THIS MEANS

This milestone groups several operational measures; removal from the remaining matches had already been announced on September 19. Permanent sanctions came on September 23.

Scope of each measure

Player substitutions, score changes, added broadcast delay and monitoring affected event operations. Revoking PUBG Vietnam Partner status affected the two players personally. These measures differ in scope from the ban across official events announced on September 23.

Announcement date

The September 20 notice summarized measures already taken; it does not establish that all of them first took effect that day.

20 SEP
2026

Context Rulebook context 05 / 09

PUBG explains the rulebook gap

WHAT HAPPENED

PUBG says the rulebook contained general fairness and sportsmanship duties, but did not specifically define or separately sanction receiving information via live chat, watching another participant’s stream, or receiving and using out-of-game information.

SOURCES

COUNTER-ARGUMENT RAISED

Clear rules. Shared accountability.

The absence of an explicit clause does not automatically permit unfair play. But ambiguity in the rules or organizer guidance must be considered when assessing responsibility and punishment.

VI RULEBOOK · §3.7 · 14.09.2026 · P.16/17

“Khuyến nghị tất cả người chơi livestream cá nhân phải cài đặt độ trễ hợp lý để tránh bị lộ thông tin.”

Exact excerpt from the Vietnamese rulebook. §4.1 also requires participants to read official Discord notices; this site has no archived pre-event guidance.

Case file & context

Response / argument

A position raised during the investigation was that the event format or earlier guidance made this conduct seem permitted. KRAFTON says it never officially allowed watching another participant's stream or using external information in play.

Context

An insufficiently specific rulebook does not mean there were no rules. KRAFTON acknowledged an operational failure while also applying the game's conduct policy and professional player duties.

What the rulebook says

Section 3.7 recommends a delay for personal livestreams. Section 1 gives organizers authority over matters not expressly covered; section 4.1 requires participants to follow Discord notices and supplementary rules. The delay clause alone does not establish permission to watch an opponent's stream.

Pre-event guidance

The archived rulebook is dated September 14, 2026, but its cover does not show when each player received it or any Discord guidance. The actual pre-event guidance and how organizers weighed their own omissions against the sanction still need to be examined.

September 21 update

In its September 21 apology, KRAFTON acknowledged inadequate safeguards, assessment criteria and sanction levels, as well as inconsistent Korean and Vietnamese notices. It also said the players' conduct had been confirmed and disciplinary proceedings were underway.

CHECK THE CONTEXT

20 SEP
2026

Decisions Schedule change 06 / 09

Day 3 is canceled

WHAT HAPPENED

PUBG cancels Day 3, saying the event could not continue under the intended conditions of trust and fairness. Prize money would be distributed under the same standard across participating regions instead of finalizing standings.

VIEW SOURCE

Kakao PUBG notice · 20 Sep (Korean)

Case file & context

DEFENSE / RESPONSE

Cancellation was the organizer's response to the event-wide loss of trust; it did not itself establish misconduct by every region or participant.

WHAT THIS MEANS

Because Day 3 was not played, the planned final standings could not be completed. Prize distribution changed so it did not rely on an unfinished final ranking.

The event and the investigation

Cancelling the final competition day ended the match schedule, while KRAFTON continued reviewing the case and announced findings and sanctions later. Cancellation did not establish wrongdoing by every participant.

20 SEP
2026

Notices Follow-up review 07 / 09

Questions remain under review

WHAT HAPPENED

In its September 20 notice, PUBG says it will continue reviewing event footage, stream POVs, team voice, the transmission of out-of-game information, whether it was used, and other related allegations.

SOURCES

COUNTER-ARGUMENT RAISED

One standard for everyone.

Stills from the livestream show Soopi opening and watching the tournament stream. They directly establish livestream viewing; the same criteria should be applied to timing and whether information informed decisions in a match.

THE SAME THREE QUESTIONS FOR EACH CASE

HIMASS & TANVUU

Timing / status: PUBG dates conduct to Day 1
Viewed / shared content: PUBG says another stream was viewed
In-game use: PUBG found strategic use

SOOPI-RELATED STILLS

Timing / status: Day 1 R4 lobby visible in the still
Viewed / shared content: Opened and watched the match stream on SOOP
In-game use: Livestream use shown; in-match tactical decisions are not shown

In its later 23 Sep findings, PUBG says it reviewed similar allegations involving others and found no further sanctionable violation; the notice does not name Soopi in that finding.

App switcher · Day 1 R4 lobby

SOOP page · livestream viewing shown

Case file & context

Response / argument

The stated review of multiple types of material shows the organizer did not treat a single image, clip, or chat excerpt as the whole case record at that point.

Context

This records the open investigation stage. Findings for Himass and TanVuu were announced on September 23; PUBG also says it reviewed similar allegations involving others using the same standard.

The same questions for every case

The review needs to establish whether conduct occurred before, during or after a match; what information was received or shared; and whether it affected decisions in play. KRAFTON said it compared event footage, player viewpoints and team communications.

What the Soopi-related stills show

Stills from the livestream show Soopi opening and watching the tournament stream on SOOP; the app switcher also shows the Day 1 R4 lobby. They directly establish livestream viewing. They do not show information being applied to in-match tactics. On September 23, PUBG said it reviewed similar allegations involving others and found no further sanctionable violation; that passage does not name Soopi.

CHECK THE CONTEXT

23 SEP
2026

Notices Investigation findings 08 / 09

PUBG publishes its investigation findings

WHAT HAPPENED

After reviewing broadcasts, participant footage, in-game data and replays, PUBG concluded that Himass and TanVuu used out-of-game information and another participant’s stream to inform gameplay decisions. This supersedes the questions left open in the September 20 notice.

SOURCES

COUNTER-ARGUMENT RAISED

Show how the conclusion was reached.

A conclusion alone does not explain the evidence. Each player’s conduct should be assessed individually, with a clear distinction between receiving information, actively seeking it, and using it in play.

CLAIM
Himass and TanVuu viewed and used out-of-game information.
EVIDENCE PUBG CITES
Broadcasts, participant footage, in-game data and replays; the complete player-specific record is not public in the sources archived here.
FINDING
PUBG concluded the information informed play. This is an attributed finding, not this site's independent verification.

This site has no archived player-specific evidence file or verified individual responses, so it cannot independently check each step of the reasoning.

Case file & context

Response / argument

One argument raised was that the conduct was understood to be permitted in a showmatch. KRAFTON denied ever officially permitting it and said it did not apply different standards across regions.

Context

PUBG says it reviewed similar allegations involving others but found no additional violations requiring sanctions. The two attached images are user-supplied material and do not replace that investigation result.

Published basis

The notice lists official broadcasts, participant footage, in-game data and replays, then concludes that external information informed judgments and tactics. The public material archived here does not lay out a player-by-player evidence chain for each incident.

Request for explanation

The request for transparency asks which evidence shows each player's conduct and how it supports the finding. This site attributes the conclusion to KRAFTON and has not independently reviewed the full underlying record.

CHECK THE CONTEXT

23 SEP
2026

Decisions Sanctions and accountability 09 / 09

Permanent bans and KRAFTON’s apology

WHAT HAPPENED

PUBG announced permanent game-account bans and permanent ineligibility for official esports events for both players. The notice also states their right to appeal through the esports process and acknowledges KRAFTON’s responsibility for its initial guidance and response.

SOURCES

COUNTER-ARGUMENT RAISED

A penalty must fit the violation.

A permanent sanction affecting a professional career requires an explanation of why a time-limited suspension would not be sufficient. Players should be able to review the relevant evidence, challenge its interpretation, and receive a meaningful response.

GAME ACCOUNTS: Permanent bans
OFFICIAL ESPORTS: Permanent ineligibility
VIETNAM PARTNER · 20 SEP: Status revoked

PUBG states that the players may use its esports response process. This site has no verified appeal outcome or team statement to cite.

Case file & context

Response / argument

PUBG explicitly states the two players may use the esports explanation or appeal process. This site has no verified document showing the result of that process.

Context

KRAFTON apologized for slow and inconsistent communication, and said it would review its own processes and help prevent further harm. The notice addresses organizer responsibility alongside player sanctions.

Why request a review?

The ban covers game accounts and all official PUBG events organized or approved by KRAFTON, beyond this showmatch. The review request asks why a time-limited suspension was insufficient and how organizer failures were weighed for each player.

GAM × TE's response

VTC News reports that TanVuu's team GAM × TE opposed the sanction and sought clear criteria and deadlines for the response process, a proportionality review and concrete help to remedy harm. This is the team's request, not a decision to reduce or overturn the ban.

Status through September 24

Sources reviewed through September 24, 2026 did not document a decision on the review request. The right to respond does not itself suspend the sanctions.

CHECK THE CONTEXT

Cases

Where each party stands

What each side has said publicly, with sources. Scamany takes no side; counter-arguments are presented for readers to weigh.

KRAFTON / PUBG

23 Sep finding: both players obtained out-of-game information via other participants’ livestreams during matches and used it for judgments and tactics.
Grounds: Sections 5.10 and 5.12 of the PUBG operating policy, plus the conduct duties of professional players.
KRAFTON says it never officially allowed watching others’ streams or using outside information, and applied no region-specific standard.
KRAFTON accepts operational responsibility: no mandatory delay, vague rule definitions, slow and inconsistent communication.

Source list →

Players & team

Per Inven, the players said they kept their own stream chat open, received information from viewers and understood the rules not to expressly prohibit it.
Some participants said pre-event guidance allowed outside information or stream viewing — KRAFTON acknowledged the claim and rejected it.
GAM × TE (TanVuu’s organisation) opposed the sanction and asked for clear criteria and deadlines for the response process and a proportionality review (per VTC News).

Source list →

Soopi (who raised the suspicion)

After Day 1, complained that the Vietnamese team destroyed a revive chip and suspected stream sniping.
Per Soha, denied stream sniping or hacking herself, saying she uses a single monitor.
Per Soha, asked for her own PUBG Partner status to be revoked because the publisher did not protect her from attacks.

Source list → People →

Open questions

What specific evidence exists for each player?
Why the maximum sanction rather than a time-limited suspension?
What criteria were used to review allegations against other participants?
Will the outcome of the response process be published?

Counter-arguments raised

The three arguments below come from the justiceforpubgvn.com campaign and community commentary. They are attributed viewpoints, not Scamany’s conclusions.

RULES & GUIDANCE

Rules must be clear

The absence of a specific clause does not make cheating permissible. Ambiguity in the rules and the organizer's responsibility should still be weighed when imposing sanctions.

The rulebook contains anti-cheating duties and requires participants to follow Discord notices. PUBG later acknowledged that its fairness standards were not specific enough.

VI RULEBOOK · §3.7 · 14.09.2026

“Khuyến nghị tất cả người chơi livestream cá nhân phải cài đặt độ trễ hợp lý để tránh bị lộ thông tin.”

Translation: Players who stream personally are encouraged to set a reasonable delay to prevent information exposure. Pre-event Discord guidance is not archived here.

Read the rulebook · §3.7 →

FINDINGS & EVIDENCE

The investigation must be fair

Clarify the evidence for each person, apply the same standard to everyone, and ensure access to evidence and the chance to explain and challenge it.

The 20 September notice left questions about viewing another stream and using its information open. The 23 September findings superseded that status.

20.09 · under review
23.09 · PUBG published findings

App switcher · Day 1 R4 lobby

SOOP page · livestream viewing shown

Stills from Soopi-related livestream footage show her opening and watching the tournament stream on SOOP. The viewing is visible; the stills do not show whether that information informed tactical decisions in a match.

Read PUBG's findings →

SANCTIONS & RIGHT TO RESPOND

The penalty must fit

Why should a violation in a showmatch lead to a permanent ban rather than a time-limited suspension? The harshest penalty needs a proportionate basis.

PUBG announced permanent game-account bans and permanent ineligibility for official esports events. Its notice also describes an esports response process.

GAME ACCOUNT: Permanent ban
OFFICIAL ESPORTS: Permanent ineligibility

View timeline & sources

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impact of the case

The case reaches beyond two players. This page separates four affected groups: the publisher, the esports market, the community and the players themselves. Each includes sourced facts, an analysis of plausible effects and indicators to watch.

COMPARISON CASE / 2024–2026

The same question about stream information. What standard was applied?

Gyumin’s PWS 2024 case raises a specific question about consistency in KRAFTON’s investigation and sanctions. The publicly available evidence for the two cases differs.

01 / 2024CONTEMPORARY ALLEGATION

Gyumin · PWS 2024

On 6 October 2024, Patryk posted on X that Gyumin, then playing for Kwangdong Freecs, had a map stream with a 10-minute delay open during PWS. The post says the window appeared on camera after a KDF win.

An open window alone does not prove the player viewed or used information during a match. PUBG Esports records show Gyumin competing in 2025–26; we have not found an original finding or disciplinary decision establishing how this incident was resolved.

02 / 2026OFFICIAL FINDING

Himass & TanVuu · Asia Stars 2026

On 23 September 2026, PUBG announced a finding that the two players used outside information in their judgments and tactics. Its notice cites broadcasts, participant videos, in-game data and replays.

KRAFTON announced permanent game-account bans and permanent ineligibility for official esports events it organizes or approves.

QUESTIONS RAISED

What did KRAFTON establish in Gyumin’s case, which rule did it apply, and what was the outcome? Which differences in evidence, conduct or rules explain the handling of these two cases?

If the cases differ, explain where. If the conduct is equivalent, explain the different sanctions. Every player deserves a standard that can be checked and applied consistently.

Sources checked on 24 September 2026. This comparison does not establish an equivalent disciplinary precedent or prove that KRAFTON overlooked misconduct in Gyumin’s case.

Analysis

Latest analysis

All analysis →

The case of Himass & TanVuu.

At a glance Updated: September 24, 2026

Case timeline

How the dispute began

Date of the event

The players' reported explanation

Korean team's response

Confirmed and still under review

Scope of each measure

Announcement date

Clear rules. Shared accountability.

What the rulebook says

Pre-event guidance

September 21 update

The event and the investigation

One standard for everyone.

HIMASS & TANVUU

SOOPI-RELATED STILLS

The same questions for every case

What the Soopi-related stills show

Show how the conclusion was reached.

Published basis

Request for explanation

A penalty must fit the violation.

Why request a review?

GAM × TE's response

Status through September 24

Where each party stands

KRAFTON / PUBG

Players & team

Soopi (who raised the suspicion)

Open questions

Counter-arguments raised

Rules must be clear

The investigation must be fair

The penalty must fit

Impact of the case

The same question about stream information. What standard was applied?

Gyumin · PWS 2024

Himass & TanVuu · Asia Stars 2026

Latest analysis

Himass & TanVuu Ban FAQ: 20 Questions Answered

Himass & TanVuu Permanent Ban Explained: The PUBG Asia Stars 2026 Case

KRAFTON’s PUBG Asia Stars Investigation Findings: Four Notices Compared

The Himass & TanVuu Appeal: How an Esports Sanction Appeal Should Work

The Gyumin PWS 2024 Case and the Question of Consistent Standards

Is a Permanent Esports Ban Proportionate? The Himass & TanVuu Case