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.
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.
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.
September 17 is the date of the relevant play. Posts, images and findings about it appeared on later dates.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The September 20 notice summarized measures already taken; it does not establish that all of them first took effect that day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
COMPARISON CASE / 2024–2026
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.
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.
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.
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.
