Black-and-white illustration of players Himass and TanVuu, provided by a user

JUSTICE FOR HIMASS & TANVUU / 17–23.09.2026

Fair treatment forHimass & TanVuu.

Not a defense of cheating. A call for clear rules, transparent investigation, and proportionate sanctions.

Skip to timeline
supporters?
Scroll to continue

A showmatch still requires fair play. But a career-altering punishment demands clear reasoning, consistent standards, and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Independent summary · not affiliated with PUBG or KRAFTON · Campaign visual supplied by a user

Timeline 17-23/09/2026

A summary of what PUBG announced in each notice. The 20/09 investigation status should be read together with the later 23/09 findings.

01 / 09Competition day 01

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
CASE FILE / 01

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

The relevant match events occurred on September 17. Posts, images, and investigation findings appeared later.

JUSTICE FOR PUBG VN · 2026
02 / 09Initial decision

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
CASE FILE / 02

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.

JUSTICE FOR PUBG VN · 2026
03 / 09Official notice

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
CASE FILE / 03

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.

JUSTICE FOR PUBG VN · 2026
04 / 09Corrective actions

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
CASE FILE / 04

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.

JUSTICE FOR PUBG VN · 2026
05 / 09Rulebook context

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
06 / 09Schedule change

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
CASE FILE / 06

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.

JUSTICE FOR PUBG VN · 2026
07 / 09Follow-up review

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
08 / 09Investigation findings

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
SCROLL FOR THE NEXT MILESTONE
09 / 09Sanctions and accountability

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

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.

View timeline & sources
GAME ACCOUNTPermanent ban
OFFICIAL ESPORTSPermanent ineligibility

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§3.7
“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.

TWO DISTINCT CLAIMS

Did they stream snipe?

Reading their own live chat

In the players' initially reported account, Himass and TanVuu kept their own stream chats open and saw match information from viewers. On 20 September, PUBG confirmed they had checked out-of-game information through personal stream content; direct viewing of another participant's stream was still under investigation then.

Why the distinction matters

Reading information posted by viewers in your own chat differs from directly opening an opponent's stream to watch the match. Both can bring outside information into play. Acknowledging the first is not an admission of the second.

PUBG's later finding

On 23 September, after reviewing footage, in-game data and replays, PUBG concluded that both players used outside information and another participant's livestream to inform tactical decisions. That is PUBG's finding, not an admission of stream sniping by the players.

Some participants said they understood earlier organizer guidance to allow outside information or stream viewing. KRAFTON says it never officially permitted either and accepts responsibility for unclear early guidance.

This site has no archived original statements from each player. The live-chat account is reported rather than independently verified here.

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.

Read PUBG's findings
20.09 · under review23.09 · PUBG published findings
User-supplied still of a SOOP livestream page in Soopi-related footage
User-supplied app-switcher still in Soopi-related footage

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.

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 FOR KRAFTON

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.

About the support count

Cloudflare Turnstile checks new support requests for bots. Each IP address can add one support; the site stores voting IPs and the total count. A browser cookie remembers a vote for up to one year.