Well. Looks like I missed a bit in my time without electricity. 

For the record, I'm against a new thread. I don't see a real necessity for it and it just provides some minor issues with being able to tell a coherent, long-term story without having to bounce around from thread to thread. It makes it more difficult for anyone whose story isn't wrapped up before the end of a season as they'd have to transfer it over mid-arc to a new IC. And it also puts strict, arbitrary time limits on arcs, even if that is an unintended consequence. People will naturally rush to try and wrap up their story before threads switch in the future. I see absolutely no need to usher in that sort of atmosphere. 

New players join established games all the time. There is nothing about having an IC with numerous posts that inherently discourages new activity. Sure, some may see the history and decide it's not for them, but others may just as well see how the IC is thriving with such activity and wish to join as a result. If you want new blood, there are other ways to achieve pulling them in. 

Now, I don't necessarily think we need a perpetual inflow of new players nor do I believe we need to rely solely on those we already have. A balance should be struck. Loyalty, persistence, and passion are all good things, and we should be proud and confident in our core player base to carry the torch. And we should encourage prospective newbies or returning players alike to come in if they're interested. But I don't think we need to panic or rush to achieve that when we're going strong. I'm not saying we should wait until things are dying, either, but those are not the only two avenues we can take.

A new interest check, updating the title to reflect that the RP is always open, a synopsis in both the OOC and IC opening posts that summarizes the important notes of the previous season (and leaving the more detailed, individualized summaries for each respective player's character sheet if desired). And, yes, not being so quick to jump down someone's throat if they show interest in a character integral to your plot.

Hex is right, but so are Star and Wraith. There is an issue with claim culture among many of us. But staking claim to important NPCs is not inherently wrong. I think Hound's use of Hank and Janet is brilliant, and I would want to encourage such great integration into the stories we weave. At this point, however, with how central of a character Hank is, Hound should just update his proposal for next season to include Hank as a joint POV for his Blue Beetle story. No different than myself controlling four Titans, or Maxx running the entire X-Men line-up. The degree to which these characters are used and are integral to a story reflect whether they should be NPCs or full-blown POVs. And it is clearly within the rules to have a single concept consist of multiple official POVs. 

When it comes to villainous legacies, I 100% appreciate and respect that those characters are usually vital to the stories we tell. I think those are the types of NPCs we should be able to lay claim to, so long as they pertain to the character(s) we are writing. Deathstroke is clearly a very popular character, and I know many people would love to utilize him. I also know that what I intend to do with the character for my story doesn't leave room for someone else to utilize him at this moment. All of the characters I personally voiced I intended to use in my proposal are antagonists. I purposefully did not try to pull in any other NPCs because I don't want to limit what others may wish to do. Yes, I have story concepts for future Titan recruits, but they're neither central to my current story nor are they something I feel I should block off from others. 

I wouldn't expect Inkarnate to give up Luthor as an NPC for someone else given the character is deeply integrated into his story in addition to being a legacy. Nor would I expect that from Wraith with the villains he has set up to be important. But Batman's rogues gallery is extensive, and they can't all be vital to his story, nor will he likely ever be able to utilize them all. I'm sure he'd love to, God knows I had a huge web of NPCs all laid out when I was Spider-Man that I intended to introduce. But, I think, that goes too far. We have to be realistic with the characters we have at our disposal and how we'll be able to use them, if at all. You can tell a great, heavily interconnected story that showcases the extensive underworld of your particular city of lore with just a handful of villains. You can also depict said villains as being around to enrich your narrative without having to claim them entirely as your own if they are not integral to the plot. 

I don't know Wraith's plans, and Nate you don't have to justify anything in response to this, but for example let's look at at prominent Bat-foe Harvey Dent. If Harvey and/or Two-Face is not deeply integrated into the story Wraith is telling, but he still wants to establish their presence in Gotham, sure, go for it. But if and when someone comes around with a compelling and reasonable use for the character, we shouldn't be opposed with cooperating and sharing the character. Or even giving the character up completely so long as what's already been established isn't ignored or contradicted. Because, in the end, we're trying to build a cohesive, shared world and narrative. 

And the same goes for heroic and other non-villainous NPCs. If they are integral to your story and are, in fact, basically a POV unto themselves, I don't understand why they are not simply included as part of the character's proposal. If I want to tell a story primarily about Red Tornado, but also wish to include the Jim Hammond Human Torch as a central character, I would apply as both in a unified proposal. But if a character isn't completely central to the story, but is still an NPC you desire to use, fine. Just be willing to share that character with another - whether after you've finished using them in your story, or simultaneously. Again, so long as it's a compelling and reasonable use of the character and will not ignore or contradict what has already been done. I'm definitely not advocating we throw around NPCs that have been already fleshed out willy-nilly because that risks continuity errors and confusion. But we definitely should not instinctively say "mine, you can't have it" just because we got to said NPC first. 

That being said, there's another real problem in these games that so frequently occurs and directly correlates to this issue. And that is oversaturation. Yes, Gotham is a cool, interesting city that we all love. But we don't need to have half a dozen POVs centralized in one location. This world is vast, especially with the lore of two combined franchises, and there is an entire universe beyond it. There are so many different cities, states, countries, planets we can explore with our stories, and we should encourage that. We should not encourage the mistake of previous games and rush to expand one section of the world at the expense of others. If you have an idea for, say Azrael, a Gotham-central character, do not be afraid to take your story to another location and explore it there. We shouldn't limit ourselves just for the sake of maintaining the status quo. 

As I said, there's a balance between not claiming and claiming too much. And it certainly isn't the easiest thing to maintain. But I think it's the healthiest route to take that can work for everyone and not just the few.