Sunborn Network Issues Stern Statement Against 'Rumor Spreaders' — But the Evidence They Published Has So Many Holes That Players Tore It Apart Line by Line

Sunborn Network — the studio behind Girls' Frontline 2: Exilium — dropped a formal statement on their official channels titled 'Stern Statement on Combating Malicious Speech.' The gist: they claim persistent rumors about the company and its legal representative Huang Chong (known in the community as 羽中/Yuzhong) have been circulating online, including fabricated stories about investor identities and fake claims linking someone to inappropriate video content. They say they've reported these to the police and recently received 'partial results.' Attached as proof: a photo of an administrative penalty notice.

But this statement — meant to 'set the record straight' — immediately blew up in their faces. NGA commenters spotted the fatal flaw almost instantly: the administrative penalty notice was for a WeChat group rumor incident in Shanghai, resulting in a 300 RMB fine (roughly $41 USD). However, the infamous whistleblower everyone remembers was posting from Beijing, sharing his story via Bilibili dynamic posts and QQ groups — a completely different person, platform, and city.

One of the top-voted comments nailed it: 'The guy was based in Beijing, posted on Bilibili, and messaged in QQ groups. You're slapping a Shanghai punishment for a WeChat rumor on top of this and calling it a day? You're deliberately mixing up two separate incidents to whitewash the real controversy. I suggest Sunborn publish what the rumor actually said, so we can all see the truth.' Another commenter added: 'That guy said he was confronted in Beijing. He talked about the dinner party on Bilibili. The screenshots were from QQ. And looking at this notice, it's just a 300 RMB bank fine — THAT counts as 'being taken down by the law'? I'll say it straight: I suspect you're a Sunborn shill (社管).'

What followed was essentially a community-wide fact-checking session. First, the severity mismatch: 'I don't see any detention order here — just a 300 RMB fine.' A 300-yuan penalty and the company's dramatic language about 'pursuing legal responsibility to the fullest extent' don't exactly align. Second, the wrong target: multiple users pointed out the penalty seemed to apply to someone who fabricated images (P图), not the 'investment guy' who was actually in Beijing. Third, even the geography was off: 'Wait, it's Shanghai? Wasn't it Beijing?'

Perhaps the most devastating take came from a commenter who noted: 'So everything the whistleblower said is true — except the investor part, apparently.' In other words, the statement only addressed the 'fake investor identity' claim, inadvertently seeming to confirm the rest of the allegations. Another user offered a more measured warning: 'Whether you're chasing clout or pushing products, at least stay legal… An administrative penalty might be invisible to most people, but whether it affects government job prospects is pretty Schrödinger-esque.'

Bottom line: this 'stern statement' not only failed to quell the controversy but actively made things worse. The evidence presented was so mismatched with the original incident that it only deepened community distrust. The consensus on NGA was clear — either the company doesn't have strong enough evidence and is padding with an unrelated case, or they're deliberately conflating two incidents to whitewash the real scandal. Either way, this is a textbook PR faceplant.