Editorial standards
How the cartoons are made.
Observation before exaggeration
Each cartoon begins with a recognizable workplace phrase, incentive or power relationship. Exaggeration serves the editorial point; it does not convert fiction into a factual allegation.
Originality and assistance
The publisher directs the concepts, copy, selection and revisions. AI tools may assist with illustration and production, as the human writing the text is artistically severely challenged with regards to drawing decent graphics for a comic. Published work remains under human editorial responsibility.
Corrections
Typos, attribution errors and material presentation mistakes are corrected when found. Revisions preserve the intended joke while avoiding confusion about who is speaking or what is being satirized.
Text, interpretation and reader contributions
The explanatory text has a different job from the joke. A transcript records words that appear in the artwork. An accessible summary describes a scene when a literal transcript would not adequately convey it. Editorial context interprets the workplace pattern. Keeping these functions distinct helps readers understand which words belong to a character and which are commentary added around the drawing.
Interpretation should stay anchored to the published work. A discussion of a manager avoiding a decision can explore the incentives involved without inventing a real incident or presenting a fictional percentage as research. Broader claims about named people or specific events need evidence appropriate to the claim. The existence of a joke is not that evidence.
Reader proposals are starting points for editorial consideration, not automatic publication. A usable suggestion identifies a recognizable situation without relying on confidential information or allegations about private individuals. Selection, adaptation and the decision to publish remain editorial choices. Automated safety checks can assist the process, but they cannot guarantee that a proposal is accurate, suitable or free from misunderstanding.
When a correction is needed, the relevant question is what would leave a reader with the wrong understanding: a misattributed line, an inaccurate scene description, a broken reference or an unintended ambiguity. A revision should address that problem while retaining the work's intended point. Readers can use the contact page to identify a specific issue; disagreement with the opinion and a factual or presentation error are different kinds of feedback and should be described accordingly.