I’m the person who posted the question titled, “Regarding the question about a lie written in a man’s feedback being reflected in a woman’s profile.”

I’m Maezawa from the president’s office, and I’ll answer as well. Thank you for your question. > Isn’t the issue that the profile was updated based solely on feedback submitted by the man, without taking it at face value and confirming the details with the woman concerned? Sorry if my explanation was unclear. As a general rule, Universe does not make decisions based on only one person’s account. When there’s a problem, our internal policy is to hear both sides. So we would never make a decision based solely on feedback from the man. The exception would be if the woman had indicated that she did not want us to confirm the matter with the other party. In that case, since we cannot verify it with the other person, it becomes something Universe cannot make a judgment on, and the feedback is treated almost as if it had never been submitted. For that reason, we cannot determine through this Q&A box what exactly the “lie” mentioned in this case refers to. For example, suppose a comment said, “She may have body odor.” (I’ve never seen a comment like that, so I doubt anyone would actually write it.) Even if the woman said, “I don’t have body odor, so a lie was written about me,” we couldn’t make any judgment without knowing the circumstances. For instance, if: - there was already an odor during the interview, - the man she went on a date with submitted the same feedback, and - other men submitted similar feedback, then even if the woman said someone had lied about her, wouldn’t it be possible that she herself simply hadn’t noticed? That’s how it seems to me.

I’m Kazu, a male member. > “A machine can follow the rules exactly as written.” That’s certainly true, but I believe matters are handled in practice according to each individual situation. This is what people mean by showing leniency based on circumstances, as Maezawa-san also mentioned in his answer. If everything were handled rigidly according to the rules, there would surely be many more men and women being forcibly banned. For example, the club rules state that transportation expenses should be paid in advance, but I’ve never heard of anyone being forcibly banned simply for not paying them in advance. It’s quite common for the information in a profile to become inaccurate. We’re only human, so people’s weight can change, and they may move to a new address. However, it seems there are still quite a few men who complain when something differs from the profile. Isn’t it asking too much of the club to demand that it establish the truth in every case? Even the police won’t investigate civil matters. When negative feedback is posted, it says something like, “We received feedback stating that…” In other words, it says, “This is what we have heard,” not, “This is the truth.” And when it’s a case of one person saying they said something and the other saying they didn’t, it doesn’t seem that a single piece of feedback is immediately posted. What I’m trying to say is that, in practice, the rules appear to be applied flexibly, depending on the circumstances of each case. Questions submitted to anonymous Q&A boxes are almost always phrased vaguely. It would be fair to say that none of the details are known. Given that, the safest kind of answer is something along the lines of, “Regardless of whether the woman’s account is true…” It may feel unsatisfying if the answer doesn’t sympathize with you, but that isn’t really a question-and-answer format. And saying that exceptions may be made when we don’t know the specific circumstances would simply be making an irresponsible promise. That’s why I believe Maezawa-san consistently phrases his answers with expressions like “It’s possible that…” and “Please contact us,” subtly indicating that the system is operated flexibly.