The old rating system was unfair to women.
There were all kinds of things that could lower a woman’s rating, such as:
- A man reporting that she was late and complaining about it
- A woman canceling at the last minute
- A woman not showing up on the day
- A woman being late for her interview (← I do wonder why this affected her rating when she hadn’t even joined yet)
But what about when a woman’s rating was supposed to go up?
Although there were criteria for increasing ratings, the staff hardly ever applied them.
For example, there was supposedly a rule that women who replied quickly would get more stars. But there were plenty of women who always replied quickly and still remained at three stars, which was the standard rating.
So, ratings could go down easily, but almost never went up. It was basically as if only women whom the staff happened to notice had met the criteria would get promoted.
That’s why, a few years ago, it was a system where ratings hardly ever increased.
Now, however, ratings automatically go up or down based on feedback. It has become a fairer system: good women are properly rewarded, while women who receive negative feedback are properly downgraded.
> Is it possible for a woman’s star rating to increase even though she hasn’t actually gone on a date or progressed to an adult relationship (intimate)?
I’m not sure why you’re limiting this to Letter Date, but with Letter Date, the arrangement is considered complete as long as the two people have exchanged at least one round of messages.
If the man is bad at communicating and the date never happens, it would be strange to include that in the woman’s rating. If anything, I’d be more inclined to lower the rating of men who send messages that make women not want to go on a date with them, since they’re causing the woman emotional distress.
As for an adult relationship (intimate), I don’t think that should have anything to do with someone’s rating, even with a regular date.
If you want to rate someone based on whether or not things progressed to that point, then you should go to a sex-work establishment.
That way, you can complain to the establishment if you’re refused. Though being refused there would have to mean you were really something else.
I’ve heard that the stars used to be adjusted manually by the staff.
I think the biggest change was switching to a system where ratings fluctuate based on member surveys.
For example, men probably tend to give higher ratings to women who are willing to get intimate with them.
So women whose allowance expectations are reasonable and who can naturally progress into an adult relationship (intimate) should naturally receive higher star ratings.
Conversely, if a woman gets a fair number of offers but remains at three stars, I would assume she either has a fairly high level of caution or is asking for a high allowance.
Since I don’t see the point in sending a survey on Letter Date before actually meeting someone, I send mine after we’ve met in person.
If I remember correctly, the rating system changed last year, so ratings now automatically go up based on a points system without anyone having to manually approve them…
For women, some see their ratings shoot up within a week or two of joining, and it does seem like they go up quickly as long as there aren’t any issues.
Maybe the ratings are rising too much to be useful as a benchmark now, and something midway between the old and new systems would be better.
Or perhaps President Kida is basically sending the message: “Don’t take those stars too seriously, you idiots.”
