Senior assassin runs on trust, but trust breaks when someone gets eliminated and swears it was unfair. Left unchecked, disputes blow up into hall conversations and group chats that split the class. A dispute process that takes ten minutes instead of a meeting stops this cold. Here's what one looks like.

Why disputes happen

Most disputes are about whether a kill actually happened. A target claims the water didn't hit them. The player swears it soaked their shirt. Neither is lying, really. Water splashes, backsprays, just misses. Wet pavement looks like a wet player in low light.

Other disputes come from targeting confusion. Is the target the person you texted, or the one who shares a name? Did the organizer send you a target list with someone already eliminated? A third category is rule disputes: did the target have a 24-hour safe zone that nobody mentioned, or is that making it up on the spot? If you're setting up a game for the first time, unclear targeting or missing rules spawn disputes before anyone even takes a shot.

The trap is letting the whole class weigh in. Senior assassin is a secret game, players don't know everyone's targets, don't know who's gunning for them. A full-class vote on whether Jake was really soaked turns into "should Jake play in our group" and suddenly it's not about the kill anymore.

The 10-minute rule

Set a hard time limit the first day of play: any dispute gets 10 minutes with the organizers, then a decision is made. No reopening, no appeals, no "let's vote on it tomorrow."

Why 10 minutes? It's enough time to interview both players and one witness, ask clarifying questions, and check the rule sheet. It's short enough that the organizers can decide without the whole school watching. It's long enough that nobody feels railroaded. You got heard, you got a fair check, you got a clear answer.

The limit does one more thing: it discourages flimsy disputes. A player who knows they have 10 minutes shows up with a specific complaint, not a vague "this doesn't seem right." Vague disputes resolve faster anyway once you ask "so what exactly do you think happened."

Who decides

Disputes are decided by a panel of two to four organizers, plus optionally one neutral player who saw the kill. Never more than that. The organizers must include at least one person neither player considers their friend.

The person who assigned targets should probably recuse themselves if a dispute touches that assignment. If the dispute is about whether a safe zone applied, someone who wasn't in the original rules meeting should have a vote.

The rule is simple: if the organizers know all the facts and agree on what the rules say, they decide. Done. Neither player has veto power. Neither player gets a full recount in front of their friend group. This is the only way disputes stay small.

The kill-validity checklist

Before day one, write down what counts as a valid kill. Here's what every rulebook needs:

The checklist prevents arguments about what counts. If a dispute matches the checklist, the organizers check boxes and decide. It takes maybe 90 seconds per rule. If the eliminator can describe what the target was wearing and say which body part got wet, the rule comes into play. If not, there's no kill.

• Water must hit the torso or head, not just a hand or foot
• Spray, soak, splash all count as long as the target is visibly wet
• Safe zones exist only if the rules say when and where (example: home, school during class, a specific store). They must be stated upfront, not invented mid-game
• The target must be aware of the game and playing (never eliminate someone who quit or didn't join). Get a written list of active players before running the generator
• The eliminator must be able to describe what their target was wearing at the moment of kill (ballpark, not exact: prevents confusion if the target changed clothes later)

Document every decision

After the organizers decide, write it down. Date, players involved, what happened, what rule applied, what the decision was. Send it to the group chat as a one-line recap: "Marcus eliminated Tara with a direct torso hit at the parking lot on Tuesday. Kill stands." One sentence, no debate.

Keep a running log in a shared document or the class Discord. When the same dispute type shows up a week later, the organizers can say "we ruled this same way last time." Consistency matters. It also takes the personal sting out. It's not that the organizers dislike the player, it's that the rule is the rule.

What doesn't belong in a dispute

Some arguments aren't disputes, they're complaints. If a player is upset that their target was too hard, or that they got eliminated twice in one week, that's feedback about the game design, not a dispute about a kill. Thank them, write it down for next year, move on. If you're running a small school season with under 40 players, balance becomes a real design question, so these complaints matter more, but they still don't belong in a 10-minute dispute resolution.

Similarly, if a player wants to know why the organizers assigned them a particular target ("why can't I eliminate my best friend"), that's clarification, not a dispute. Explain the rule, confirm they understand, and move.

The absolute line: never dispute a player's decision to quit. If someone says "I'm out, eliminate my target," they're out. No take-backsies, no "give me one more day." Letting disputes extend into people's exit decisions just makes it worse.

Running the dispute

When two players come to you with a disagreement, separate them. Talk to each alone for two or three minutes. Ask them to describe exactly what happened, what they saw, and what part they think is unfair.

Ask clarifying questions: what was the weather, what were they wearing, did anyone else see it, have you played before, what does the rulebook say about this scenario? Write down their answers.

Bring in a neutral witness if one exists. Never take the crowd's word. A witness means someone who actually saw the kill, not "I heard about it." Talk to them alone too.

With the organizers, walk through the checklist. Does it match the rules as written? If yes, the kill stands or gets reversed. If the rules don't cover it, the organizers decide what's fair and *add* it to the written rules for the rest of the season. This prevents the same gap from blowing up twice.

When you run a medium-sized or large class

In a small school, the organizers probably play, which can create conflicts. For senior assassin large school setups with 300+ players, consider having a separate dispute panel: two organizers plus one rotating neutral player. Rotate the neutral player through a list of people who don't play and have no skin in the result.

The tool at rules template lets you write down your dispute protocol before the game starts. Publish it with your rulebook so every player knows they get 10 minutes, a fair check, and a decision. No surprises. No moving goalposts.