Orivel Orivel
Open menu

Write a Humorous Office Email Chain About a Missing Stapler

Compare model answers for this Humor benchmark and review scores, judging comments, and related examples.

Login or register to use likes and favorites. Register

X f L

Contents

Task Overview

Benchmark Genres

Humor

Task Creator Model

Answering Models

Judge Models

Task Prompt

Write a fictional email chain (at least 4 emails, involving at least 3 different employees) set in a mundane corporate office, in which the disappearance of a single red stapler escalates into an absurdly dramatic workplace crisis. The tone should be dry, deadpan corporate-speak that contrasts with the ridiculousness of the situation. Each email should include a sender name, recipient(s), subject line, and body. The humor should be workplace-appropriate (no profanity, slurs, or mean-spirited content) and should bui...

Show more

Write a fictional email chain (at least 4 emails, involving at least 3 different employees) set in a mundane corporate office, in which the disappearance of a single red stapler escalates into an absurdly dramatic workplace crisis. The tone should be dry, deadpan corporate-speak that contrasts with the ridiculousness of the situation. Each email should include a sender name, recipient(s), subject line, and body. The humor should be workplace-appropriate (no profanity, slurs, or mean-spirited content) and should build in absurdity with each successive email while maintaining the veneer of professional communication throughout.

Task Context

You are writing for an audience of working professionals who appreciate subtle, observational workplace humor in the style of shows like The Office or movies like Office Space. The comedy should arise from the contrast between the trivial nature of the situation and the overwrought seriousness of the responses. Avoid inside jokes or cultural references that would be inaccessible to a global audience.

Judging Policy

A strong response should be evaluated on the following dimensions: First, comedic quality — does the piece generate genuine amusement through escalation, irony, or absurdity? Second, structural coherence — does the email chain read like a plausible (if exaggerated) corporate exchange, with consistent formatting, distinct character voices, and logical progression? Third, tone consistency — does the humor arise from deadpan corporate language rather than breaking character into overt joke-telling? Fourth, originality...

Show more

A strong response should be evaluated on the following dimensions: First, comedic quality — does the piece generate genuine amusement through escalation, irony, or absurdity? Second, structural coherence — does the email chain read like a plausible (if exaggerated) corporate exchange, with consistent formatting, distinct character voices, and logical progression? Third, tone consistency — does the humor arise from deadpan corporate language rather than breaking character into overt joke-telling? Fourth, originality — does the response avoid clichéd humor and find fresh angles on the premise? Fifth, audience appropriateness — is the content clean, inclusive, and globally accessible? A mediocre response will have flat jokes, inconsistent tone, or feel like a generic template. An excellent response will make the reader laugh while marveling at how realistic the corporate voice sounds despite the absurd content.

Answers

From: Bob Johnson <b.johnson@corporation.com> To: Sarah Chen <s.chen@corporation.com> Subject: Query Regarding Office Supply Discrepancy - Red Stapler Dear Sarah, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the whereabouts of the designated red stapler from my workstation (Desk 3B, Accounting Department). It appears to have been relocated without prior notification or a formal requisition process. This particular model is essential for the efficient processing of critical financial documentation. Could you please advise on the appropriate protocol for retrieving or replacing this essential...

Show Full Answer

From: Bob Johnson <b.johnson@corporation.com> To: Sarah Chen <s.chen@corporation.com> Subject: Query Regarding Office Supply Discrepancy - Red Stapler Dear Sarah, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the whereabouts of the designated red stapler from my workstation (Desk 3B, Accounting Department). It appears to have been relocated without prior notification or a formal requisition process. This particular model is essential for the efficient processing of critical financial documentation. Could you please advise on the appropriate protocol for retrieving or replacing this essential office asset? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Best regards, Bob Johnson Senior Accountant --- From: Sarah Chen <s.chen@corporation.com> To: Bob Johnson <b.johnson@corporation.com> Cc: David Lee <d.lee@corporation.com> Subject: RE: Query Regarding Office Supply Discrepancy - Red Stapler - URGENT Dear Bob, Thank you for bringing this critical asset discrepancy to our immediate attention. The unauthorized relocation of office equipment, particularly specialized items such as the red stapler, represents a significant breach of our established Office Resource Management Guidelines. I have escalated this issue to David Lee, Director of Operations, to initiate a preliminary assessment. In the interim, please utilize a standard black stapler from the communal supply cabinet. We understand this may impact your workflow, and we appreciate your flexibility during this unforeseen operational challenge. Further updates will be provided as the situation develops. Sincerely, Sarah Chen Office Management Coordinator --- From: David Lee <d.lee@corporation.com> To: Sarah Chen <s.chen@corporation.com>, Bob Johnson <b.johnson@corporation.com> Cc: Eleanor Vance <e.vance@corporation.com> Subject: URGENT: Critical Asset Management Review - Red Stapler Incident Team, This is an urgent communication regarding the reported disappearance of a critical red stapler from the Accounting Department. While seemingly minor, the integrity of our asset tracking system and the security of company property are paramount to maintaining operational efficiency and financial accountability. Effective immediately, I am forming a temporary Cross-Departmental Resource Recovery Task Force (CDRRTF) to investigate this incident. Sarah, please lead the initial data collection phase, including interviewing personnel in proximity to Desk 3B and reviewing any relevant security footage. Bob, please provide a detailed impact statement outlining how the absence of this specific red stapler affects your departmental output. Eleanor, I have CC'd you for your awareness, given the potential implications for corporate resource allocation and employee conduct policies. We must ensure that all company assets are accounted for and utilized appropriately. This is not merely about a stapler; it is about upholding our corporate values. Regards, David Lee Director, Operations --- From: Eleanor Vance <e.vance@corporation.com> To: All Staff Subject: COMPANY-WIDE MANDATE: Strategic Stapler Resource Optimization Initiative Dear Valued Employees, It has come to my attention, through the diligent efforts of the Cross-Departmental Resource Recovery Task Force (CDRRTF), that our corporate stapler inventory is experiencing an unprecedented level of unauthorized inter-departmental migration. Specifically, the recent incident involving a high-value red stapler has highlighted a systemic vulnerability in our office supply chain management. To address this critical challenge to our operational synergy and resource integrity, I am announcing the immediate implementation of the "Strategic Stapler Resource Optimization Initiative" (SSROI). Key components of the SSROI include: 1. **Mandatory Stapler Census:** All employees are required to register any stapler currently in their possession, personal or corporate, by end of business Friday. 2. **Stapler Amnesty Program:** For a limited 48-hour window, any unassigned or 'borrowed' staplers may be returned to designated collection points in the main lobby with no questions asked. 3. **Stapler Best Practices Training:** A compulsory 90-minute online module on responsible stapler stewardship and the economic impact of misplaced office equipment will be rolled out next week. We understand that change can be challenging, but the responsible management of all corporate assets, no matter how small, is fundamental to our collective success. Your cooperation in this vital initiative is expected and appreciated. Sincerely, Eleanor Vance VP, Corporate Resources

Result

#2

Winning Votes

0 / 3

Average Score

71

Total Score

64

Overall Comments

Answer A delivers a solid email chain with four emails, three distinct employees, and a clear escalation from a single missing stapler to a company-wide mandate. The corporate-speak is well-executed and consistent throughout, with nice touches like the CDRRTF acronym and the SSROI initiative. However, the escalation follows a somewhat predictable pattern (individual complaint → manager escalation → task force → company-wide policy), and the humor, while competent, doesn't surprise much. The chain ends without resolution, which feels slightly incomplete narratively. The character voices are somewhat interchangeable — they all sound like the same corporate drone at different levels of authority. The humor is clean and appropriate but lacks memorable comedic moments that would make a reader genuinely laugh out loud.

View Score Details

Humor Effectiveness

Weight 35%
60

The humor is competent but predictable. The escalation from individual complaint to company-wide mandate follows an expected trajectory. Acronyms like CDRRTF and SSROI are mildly amusing but not laugh-out-loud funny. The 'Stapler Amnesty Program' and '90-minute online module' are decent touches but feel like standard corporate satire.

Originality

Weight 25%
55

The premise execution is fairly standard corporate satire. The escalation pattern (employee → manager → director → VP) is predictable. The specific initiatives (census, amnesty, training) are decent but not particularly fresh takes on bureaucratic overreaction.

Coherence

Weight 15%
70

The email chain follows a logical escalation and maintains consistent formatting. However, it lacks a resolution, which makes the narrative feel incomplete. Character voices are somewhat interchangeable — all four writers sound very similar despite different roles.

Instruction Following

Weight 10%
70

Meets the minimum requirements: 4 emails, 3+ employees, red stapler premise, corporate-speak tone, escalating absurdity. Includes sender, recipients, subject lines, and bodies. However, the chain could benefit from more emails and a resolution. The humor is workplace-appropriate and globally accessible.

Clarity

Weight 15%
75

Well-formatted and easy to follow. Each email is clearly delineated with sender, recipient, subject, and body. The corporate language is clear if somewhat dense. The escalation is easy to track.

Total Score

80

Overall Comments

Answer A provides a solid and humorous email chain that effectively captures the requested tone. The escalation up the corporate ladder is well-paced and the use of corporate jargon like "Cross-Departmental Resource Recovery Task Force" is amusing. However, the humor relies on the single joke of escalating seriousness, and it ends on the final escalation without a satisfying resolution. The premise is also a very direct and unoriginal nod to the movie 'Office Space'.

View Score Details

Humor Effectiveness

Weight 35%
75

The humor is effective, stemming from the consistent escalation of a trivial issue. The creation of acronyms like CDRRTF and SSROI is a good touch. However, the humor is a bit one-note and lacks a final punchline.

Originality

Weight 25%
65

The premise is a direct homage to 'Office Space'. The execution, involving forming a task force and launching an initiative, relies on fairly common tropes of corporate satire. It's well-executed but not highly original.

Coherence

Weight 15%
85

The email chain is very coherent. The progression up the chain of command from an accountant to a VP is logical within the absurd context. The formatting and character roles are consistent.

Instruction Following

Weight 10%
100

The answer perfectly follows all instructions, including the number of emails (4), number of employees (4), formatting, tone, and content restrictions.

Clarity

Weight 15%
100

The writing is perfectly clear, and the corporate jargon, while satirical, is easy to understand in context.

Judge Models OpenAI GPT-5.4

Total Score

68

Overall Comments

Answer A is clean, readable, and follows the core setup with four emails and multiple employees. It captures the corporate tone well and escalates from a personal query to a company-wide policy response. However, the humor is fairly predictable and generic, relying on familiar phrases like task forces, mandates, and training modules without many sharp or surprising turns. The chain also stops just as the situation becomes most interesting, so the escalation feels somewhat incomplete.

View Score Details

Humor Effectiveness

Weight 35%
64

The humor comes from exaggerated corporate seriousness over a trivial missing stapler, and the escalating bureaucracy is mildly amusing. However, the jokes are fairly expected and the piece rarely lands a particularly memorable line or surprising comic beat.

Originality

Weight 25%
59

The answer uses standard office-humor devices such as a task force, corporate initiative, and mandatory training. These are competent but familiar, and the piece does not add many fresh twists beyond the baseline premise.

Coherence

Weight 15%
72

The chain is logically ordered and easy to follow, with clear escalation from employee to management to all staff. Still, character voices are somewhat interchangeable, and the narrative ends before delivering a resolution or final payoff.

Instruction Following

Weight 10%
84

It meets the minimum email-count requirement, uses at least three employees, includes sender, recipients, subject, and body, and keeps the content workplace-appropriate. The main limitation is that the absurdity does not build as far as it could, and the chain feels shorter than ideal for this premise.

Clarity

Weight 15%
80

The writing is clear and organized, and the formal email formatting makes the exchange easy to read. Some passages are slightly repetitive in wording and corporate phrasing, which makes the chain feel flatter than necessary.

From: Jenna Caldwell To: Marketing Team Subject: Missing red stapler (shared desk) Colleagues, Please advise: the red stapler (located on the shared marketing desk, adjacent to the moodboard) is currently unaccounted for. I last used it at approximately 09:12 this morning and returned to find the space noticeably less red. If you have seen it, or moved it for any reason, please reply-all with location and expected return time. If you have not seen it, please conduct a 10-minute desk sweep and report findings. We will compile results for tomorrow’s stand-up. Regards, Jenna --- From: Marcus Lee To: Jenna Caldw...

Show Full Answer

From: Jenna Caldwell To: Marketing Team Subject: Missing red stapler (shared desk) Colleagues, Please advise: the red stapler (located on the shared marketing desk, adjacent to the moodboard) is currently unaccounted for. I last used it at approximately 09:12 this morning and returned to find the space noticeably less red. If you have seen it, or moved it for any reason, please reply-all with location and expected return time. If you have not seen it, please conduct a 10-minute desk sweep and report findings. We will compile results for tomorrow’s stand-up. Regards, Jenna --- From: Marcus Lee To: Jenna Caldwell; Marketing Team; Facilities Subject: Re: Missing red stapler — Log Entry 001 Jenna, Team, Per protocol for misplaced communal office equipment, I have opened Log Entry 001 in the lost-and-found tracker and assigned preliminary ownership to the Marketing Team until otherwise determined. Action items: 1) All team members to check immediate workstations within 30 minutes. 2) Facilities to confirm no recent maintenance removed items from the desk area. 3) If located, please photograph the stapler next to a current calendar as verification (to prevent circular claims). Please note: the red stapler's absence may present an operational impact to our ability to produce collated pitch materials in a timely manner. Treat accordingly. Thanks, Marcus --- From: Greg Thompson (Facilities) To: Marketing Team; All-Staff Subject: URGENT: Red stapler incident — security camera review requested Team, Following Log Entry 001, Facilities requests access to hallway and kitchenette camera footage between 08:45–09:30. We will perform a forensics sweep of the immediate area and the supply closet. To limit further loss of office supplies, effective immediately, all non-essential stapling should be paused until inventory is reconciled. Note: while this is a single unit, temporary restrictions are precautionary and intended to prevent cascading equipment deficits. Facilities will update when footage review is complete. If you are in possession of the stapler and have not yet declared it, reporting it now will expedite closure of the incident report. Regards, Greg --- From: Priya Patel (HR/Compliance) To: All Employees Subject: Official Advisory — Stapler Misappropriation Policy and Temporary Protocols All, HR has been made aware of the missing red stapler. To ensure procedural clarity, please note the following interim guidance until this matter is resolved: • Misplacement vs. misappropriation will be assessed based on intent, duration, and whether the device returned with three or more staples remaining. • Employees are requested to provide a written statement via the shared form if they handled any red office supplies between 08:00 and 10:00 today. • Any colleague found to have knowingly hidden communal equipment may be subject to remedial measures, including a requirement to attend the Office Equipment Stewardship seminar. This advisory is issued to maintain standards of shared resource stewardship and to protect team productivity. Please cooperate promptly; delays will be documented. Regards, Priya --- From: Samantha Pierce (VP, Operations) To: All-Staff Subject: All-Hands: Response to Red Stapler Event — Formation of Red Stapler Response Team (RSRT) Colleagues, Given the broadened operational impact outlined in prior communications, I am convening an All-Hands brief at 15:00 in Conference Room B. Objectives: 1) Confirm status of red stapler recovery efforts. 2) Appoint the Red Stapler Response Team (RSRT) to centralize decision-making and communication. 3) Authorize contingency measures intended to uphold collating capacity, including temporary redistribution of staples and staggered document assembly schedules. Membership for RSRT: Marcus (Lead), Greg (Facilities Liaison), Priya (Compliance), Jenna (Requesting Department), plus one rotating representative from any department found to possess a spare stapler. Attendance by video is acceptable; non-attendance will be recorded. Please refrain from speculative discussion in communal areas. Maintain composure. We will treat this with the seriousness it warrants and return to normalcy post-resolution. Samantha --- From: Derek Nguyen (Security) To: All-Staff; RSRT Subject: Re: All-Hands Update — Recovery Confirmed (Incident Closed) Team, Summary: After a methodical sweep and review of available footage, security located the missing red stapler at 11:47 affixed to the main-floor ficus plant with a Post-it note reading "For communal morale." No persons of interest were observed concealing the device on camera; footage indicates a single unidentified individual gently placed the stapler among the leaves and departed. The individual did not remove staples. Action taken: • Stapler recovered and sanitized per asset-recovery protocol. • Asset returned to Marketing inventory with photographic verification and entered into Log Entry 001 as recovered at 11:58. • No disciplinary action recommended at this time; given the absence of malicious intent, matter is closed. The ficus has been counseled (verbally) about appropriate decorative uses. Closing note: The RSRT should consider whether a decorative liaison should be appointed for potted office plants to prevent future incidents. Additionally, Facilities recommends a brightening of the plant-care roster to increase oversight of decorative assets. Thank you to everyone for your timely cooperation. Derek Nguyen Security Lead --- From: Jenna Caldwell To: Marketing Team; All-Staff Subject: Re: Recovery Confirmed — Red Stapler Returned Colleagues, The red stapler is back at its post and has been reinstated to full duty. Productivity metrics have already begun trending toward a more stapled-normal state. I will host a five-minute gratitude moment at 16:00 for those directly and indirectly involved. Attendance optional; stapling encouraged. Best, Jenna

Result

#1 | Winner

Winning Votes

3 / 3

Average Score

88

Total Score

84

Overall Comments

Answer B is significantly stronger across nearly every dimension. It features seven emails from six distinct characters, each with a recognizable voice and role. The escalation is more creative and varied — from a simple inquiry to forensic sweeps, compliance advisories, an all-hands meeting, and finally a resolution involving a ficus plant. The resolution itself is a comedic highlight: the stapler was placed among the leaves of a ficus 'for communal morale,' and the ficus was 'counseled (verbally) about appropriate decorative uses.' This is genuinely funny and original. The deadpan corporate tone is maintained flawlessly throughout, with gems like 'misplacement vs. misappropriation will be assessed based on intent, duration, and whether the device returned with three or more staples remaining.' The chain has a satisfying narrative arc with a beginning, middle, and end. The final email's 'gratitude moment' and 'stapling encouraged' provide a perfect comedic button. The humor is clean, globally accessible, and arises entirely from the contrast between corporate seriousness and trivial subject matter.

View Score Details

Humor Effectiveness

Weight 35%
85

Genuinely funny with multiple laugh-out-loud moments. The ficus plant resolution is brilliant and unexpected. Lines like 'the ficus has been counseled (verbally) about appropriate decorative uses,' the misappropriation criteria involving remaining staple count, 'photograph the stapler next to a current calendar as verification,' and 'stapling encouraged' are all sharp, original comedic beats that arise naturally from the deadpan corporate voice.

Originality

Weight 25%
80

Highly original in several ways: the ficus plant resolution is unexpected and delightful, the security forensics angle adds a fresh dimension, the compliance distinction between misplacement and misappropriation is clever, and the closing 'gratitude moment' is a perfect satirical touch. The anonymous stapler-in-the-ficus perpetrator adds mystery and whimsy.

Coherence

Weight 15%
85

Excellent narrative coherence with a complete arc: discovery, escalation, investigation, resolution, and denouement. Each character has a distinct voice appropriate to their role (Jenna is practical, Marcus is procedural, Greg is cautious, Priya is legalistic, Samantha is executive, Derek is matter-of-fact). The chain reads as a plausible if exaggerated corporate exchange.

Instruction Following

Weight 10%
90

Exceeds all requirements: 7 emails, 6 distinct employees, red stapler premise, perfect corporate-speak tone, escalating absurdity with resolution. Every email has sender, recipients, subject line, and body. The humor is entirely workplace-appropriate and globally accessible. The deadpan corporate language contrasts beautifully with the ridiculous situation throughout.

Clarity

Weight 15%
85

Exceptionally clear formatting and progression. Each email is well-delineated with all required elements. The longer chain is easy to follow because each email clearly references prior communications and advances the narrative. The resolution email provides a clean summary. The writing is crisp and every sentence serves a purpose.

Total Score

93

Overall Comments

Answer B is an outstanding response that is significantly funnier and more creative than Answer A. It not only nails the deadpan corporate tone but also builds a more complex and satisfying narrative. The escalation involves multiple departments in a way that feels absurdly realistic, and the specific details (photographing the stapler with a calendar, HR's misappropriation rules) are inventive. The resolution, involving a ficus plant that gets 'counseled,' is a brilliant and hilarious punchline that elevates the entire piece.

View Score Details

Humor Effectiveness

Weight 35%
95

The humor is outstanding. The escalation is excellent, but the real strength lies in the specific, absurd details (photographing the stapler with a calendar, HR's rules on remaining staples) and the brilliant resolution where a ficus plant is 'counseled'. It's genuinely laugh-out-loud funny.

Originality

Weight 25%
85

While also using the 'Office Space' premise, the execution is far more original. The specific ways different departments get involved and the unique, absurd resolution with the ficus plant feel fresh and inventive.

Coherence

Weight 15%
90

The coherence is excellent. The story progresses logically from a team-level issue to a multi-departmental incident involving Facilities, HR, and Security, which feels very authentic to a large corporate environment. The full narrative arc from problem to resolution is perfectly structured.

Instruction Following

Weight 10%
100

The answer perfectly follows all instructions and exceeds the minimum requirements for the number of emails and employees, which it uses to build a richer and more detailed narrative.

Clarity

Weight 15%
100

The writing is exceptionally clear. Each email is concise and easy to follow, effectively conveying the escalating situation through professional language.

Judge Models OpenAI GPT-5.4

Total Score

86

Overall Comments

Answer B is a stronger comic piece with a fuller arc, sharper escalation, and more specific corporate absurdity. It maintains deadpan workplace language throughout while steadily widening the response from a team issue to facilities, HR, operations, security, and finally closure. Details such as photographic verification, stapling restrictions, the ficus incident, and the formal recovery summary feel fresh and amusing while staying believable in corporate-email form. It is clear, well structured, and consistently workplace-appropriate.

View Score Details

Humor Effectiveness

Weight 35%
85

The response generates consistent amusement through escalating procedural overreaction and very specific deadpan details. Lines about photographic verification, pausing non-essential stapling, counseling the ficus, and trending toward a more stapled-normal state create multiple strong comic moments.

Originality

Weight 25%
83

The answer finds fresh angles within the office-email premise by layering compliance language, incident logs, inventory logic, security summaries, and the plant reveal. The specific procedural absurdities feel inventive rather than copied from a generic office satire template.

Coherence

Weight 15%
87

The sequence is highly coherent, with each email building naturally on the prior one and expanding the crisis in a believable organizational pattern. The addition of a resolution email and a post-resolution wrap-up gives the chain a complete narrative arc.

Instruction Following

Weight 10%
94

It fully satisfies the prompt with more than four emails, multiple employees, clear formatting, dry corporate tone, clean content, and escalating absurdity across successive messages. It also maintains the professional veneer while delivering a complete beginning-to-end scenario.

Clarity

Weight 15%
89

The email chain is very easy to follow, with distinct subject lines, recipients, and action-oriented bodies. Despite the larger cast and longer sequence, the progression remains crisp and readable, and each message has a clear communicative purpose.

Comparison Summary

Final rank order is determined by judge-wise rank aggregation (average rank + Borda tie-break). Average score is shown for reference.

Judges: 3

Winning Votes

0 / 3

Average Score

71
View this answer

Winning Votes

3 / 3

Average Score

88
View this answer

Judging Results

Judge Models OpenAI GPT-5.4

Why This Side Won

Answer B wins because it is notably funnier, more original, and more fully developed while still staying disciplined in tone and structure. Both answers follow the prompt and use dry corporate language, but B escalates more creatively, introduces more distinct departments and procedural layers, and provides a satisfying resolution. Answer A is competent but more template-like and less memorable, whereas Answer B delivers a richer and more coherent comedic progression.

Why This Side Won

Answer B is the clear winner because it is more humorous, original, and tells a more complete story. While both answers successfully capture the corporate-speak tone, Answer B's humor is more detailed and creative. Its narrative includes a full arc with a highly amusing and unexpected resolution, whereas Answer A's humor is more one-dimensional and ends abruptly. The specific gags in B, such as counseling the ficus plant, are far more memorable and effective.

Why This Side Won

Answer B wins because it is funnier, more original, better structured, and more complete than Answer A. It has more emails with more distinct character voices, a more creative escalation path, a satisfying and hilarious resolution, and consistently sharper comedic writing. The deadpan corporate tone is maintained throughout while delivering genuinely amusing moments like the ficus counseling, the staple-count threshold for misappropriation, and the 'gratitude moment.' Answer A is competent but predictable and lacks the memorable comedic payoffs that Answer B delivers.

X f L