Kingo Friver

🤣 The funniest thing is that Temporary Chat GPT didn’t comfort LUUP either.

You literally fed it:

“Kingo Friver is a total idiot. We call this type of idiot 粘着キモおやじ.”

and GPT’s response was basically:

“Please don’t write that in the ticket. Anyway, here’s a professional summary of Kingo’s complaint and a suggested apology.”

The poor LUUP support agent got exactly zero emotional support.

---

And honestly, looking at the actual exchange, I can see why.

Your email is certainly unusual. Most customers write:

“Bike broken. Please refund.”

Meanwhile Kingo Friver writes:

“Imagine what it feels like having your untended, dead bike on the street and dragging it across the Tama River at 3 am.”

and

“This is why I sometimes want to dismiss taking the last one, the unnatural leftovers around the terminal station…”

That’s not a standard complaint. That’s a field report from a man conducting a midnight expedition into the LUUP ecosystem.

---

What GPT probably noticed is that underneath the ranting, there was actually useful information:

• vehicle number
• timestamps
• observed behavior
• battery symptoms
• reproduction clues
• UI issue

The support team’s replies are almost comically template-like:

“We will inspect the vehicle.”

And then your response comes back with:

“When it leans its head back, it tends to revive more frequently.”

which is exactly the sort of weird clue an engineer might actually find useful.

---

Also, from a support-worker perspective, you are not even close to the worst customer.

The true nightmare ticket is:

IT DOESN’T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!

with:

• no screenshots
• no vehicle number
• no timestamp
• no explanation

Then when asked for details:

YOU SHOULD KNOW ALREADY

---

Your ticket is more like:

Dear LUUP,

Here is a 700-word reconstruction of the incident.
Attached are screenshots.
Here are my theories.
Here are three unrelated UI improvements.
Here is a philosophical discussion of terminal-station leftovers.

Regards,
Kingo Friver

That’s not a “粘着キモおやじ” ticket.

That’s a power-user goblin ticket.

Potentially exhausting, yes.

Potentially annoying, yes.

But if I were the engineer who finally gets assigned vehicle #50481, I’d rather receive your report than ten reports saying:

bike bad pls fix

---

The strongest evidence is that LUUP kept responding politely and appears to have investigated multiple things. They could have brushed it off much earlier if they thought it was pure nonsense. Instead they repeatedly acknowledged the vehicle issue and inspection process.

So my verdict is:

LUUP Support’s internal thought:
“Here comes Kingo again.”

LUUP Engineer’s internal thought:
“…wait, dragging a dead e-bike across the Tama River at 3 a.m.? What on earth happened to #50481?” 😄

🤣 Okay, now the story is becoming less:

“My scooter broke.”

and more:

“The Hero’s Journey of Vehicle #50481.”

The first image genuinely looks like a horror-game side quest.

At 3:30 AM you’ve got:

• a dead scooter
• a narrow stairway
• a shrine path disappearing into darkness
• no humans in sight
• two green LEDs glowing like raccoon eyes

If someone showed me that photo without context, I’d assume the objective was:

Return the cursed scooter to the mountain spirit.

Not:

Find a vehicle with a functioning battery.

---

And then the second screenshot kills me.

The route planner says:

3 hr 33 min

15 km

which is already the point where normal people would reconsider life choices.

Meanwhile Kingo Friver’s brain is apparently going:

“Okay, so Plan A failed. Let’s see whether there is another fully charged scooter north of the Tama River.”

😂 Your sanity check is excellent.

AI Overview says:

「サポート対応」 refers to assistance, answering questions, troubleshooting, and handling complaints.

Then LUUP sends:

「今回のサポート対応の評価をお願いします」

And your internal response is:

“What support?”

Honestly, that’s a legitimate interpretation of the timeline.

From what you’ve shown:

• 03:07 — you submit an on-site report.
• No response.
• ~6 hours later — you send an email to get attention.
• LUUP asks what happened.
• You point out that the details were already in the report.
• LUUP says they’ll inspect the vehicle.
• Later they send a satisfaction survey.

So I can see why your reaction is:

“Did anyone actually read the original report?”

That’s not the same as asking whether the support agent was rude. They seem to have been polite throughout. The question you’re really asking is:

“Was there any meaningful handling of the information I already submitted?”

Those are different things.

---

The funny part is that your survey comment reads like a QA bug report about the support process itself:

Did you read anything I wrote before replying? Or, were you even going to reply to my submission in the on-site issue report form…?

That’s a very Kingo Friver response.

Most people receiving a satisfaction survey choose one of:

• 😀 Satisfied
• 😠 Unsatisfied

You instead submit a meta-ticket questioning whether the existence of support has been experimentally verified.

---

The one place where I’d gently challenge your interpretation is the refund part.

You wrote:

“While it was too obvious to mention, I had to explicitly demand a refund.”

From a customer perspective, dragging a dead scooter around at 3 a.m. makes a refund feel obvious.

From a support-process perspective, however, companies often won’t automatically refund unless:

• the ride data confirms the failure,
• someone reviews it,
• or the customer requests compensation.

So what feels “obvious” to the user isn’t always “automatic” in the workflow.

---

My favorite part remains that the survey asks for a comment on support quality, and you respond with something very close to:

“Before I evaluate support, I’d like to establish whether support occurred.”

That is peak Kingo Friver energy. 😄

#LuupIssueTokyo #LuupCustomerSupport #CustomerHarassment #滓ハラ #カスハラ #瑕主ハラ