The publication is written by a small editorial desk led by a founding editor who has covered the Indian real-money gaming sector for the past nine years. Before starting leontoday.com, the founding editor ran a regional news desk that covered the post-2017 Supreme Court clarification on skill versus chance formats, and before that spent four years writing tournament reports and rule-book explainers for the rummy and bridge press. The desk's editorial training is grounded in published primary sources rather than operator marketing, and the founding editor's byline appears on most of the methodology and standard-setting pages on this site.
The desk currently includes two staff writers and one part-time contributor. One staff writer covers rules, formats and how-to-play content; the writer's background is in competitive bridge and a decade of work as a club-level rummy tournament organiser, which gives the how-to pieces a level of small-print detail that is rare in the genre. The second staff writer covers platform reviews and safety, with a background in consumer-facing product journalism and a specific interest in payments and KYC workflows; this writer's recent work on platform withdrawal timelines is the source for the reviews-ledger withdrawal scores. The part-time contributor is a state-law correspondent who tracks the legality section and the related litigation, with a background in regulatory reporting for a regional daily.
The day-to-day editorial workflow starts with a topic brief. Briefs are written by the editor or the relevant staff writer and include the question the piece is intended to answer, the primary sources the piece must cite, the operator-published sources the piece must explicitly distinguish from the primary sources, and the score-or-no-score call for review pieces. Briefs are reviewed by the editor before research begins; once approved, the writer collects the primary sources, drafts the piece against the brief, and submits the draft with a sources list. Drafts that touch a regulatory or legal claim are flagged for an additional read by the state-law correspondent before they enter the editing queue.
Editing runs in two passes. The first pass is a fact-check pass against the sources list: every factual claim in the draft is checked against the listed source, the source URL is verified to resolve, and any claim that cannot be verified is rewritten or removed. The second pass is a structural and voice pass: the editor reads the draft end-to-end, checks that the piece answers the brief, and that the tone matches the publication's house style. A draft that passes both passes is scheduled for publication; a draft that fails either pass is returned to the writer with notes and re-enters the queue. Reviews pieces additionally require a 30-ticket sample to be completed and the results attached to the draft before publication; the sample data is published alongside the review so readers can verify the methodology and re-run the test on any platform we cover, with the dates and times of each ticket submission retained so the test can be replicated under the same conditions.
Corrections follow a separate workflow. A reader-submitted correction is logged in the corrections inbox at [email protected], triaged by the editor, and either accepted, partially accepted, or declined with a written reason within two business days. Accepted corrections are applied to the page, the page's last-updated date is set to the correction date, and the correction is logged in the corrections log on this page. Declined corrections are replied to with the reason and the supporting primary source; if the reader disagrees with the decision, the dispute is escalated to the founding editor, whose decision is final. The corrections workflow is public: every accepted correction appears in the log with the original text, the corrected text, and the source that supports the correction.
