Ultimately, I believe that such measures are unlikely to truly prevent library leaks. Even if access is restricted, new accounts will still be created — if not by real people, then by bots. They’ll simply “sit around,” post meaningless messages, and wait until access to the library opens so they can download whatever they want. It’s enough to write one “hello” post, wait a week — and there you go, full access to download books. Honestly, I’m not convinced this will be very effective.
On one hand, I understand the intention — protection and filtering. On the other hand — how well will it work in practice?
Take me, for example. I registered recently, and it was precisely the library that caught my attention, along with the friendly and supportive atmosphere of the community. Here, you can really get advice, direction for development, and even personal support (which I also needed). Moreover, I was looking for literature that was simply impossible to find online — not because it didn’t exist, but because I didn’t even know what exactly to look for or where. On WF, for the first time, I found a structured library with reliable, verified authors.
But the library doesn’t exclude the forum’s existence (that very question: “forum and library, or library and forum?” — to me, it makes no difference, because the goal remains the same: we gain knowledge from the library and then discuss it on the forum. It doesn’t matter which comes first — conversation or reading. The point is that the process flows both ways. So there’s no need to fear that the forum will “turn into a library” — it already isn’t one, thanks to the many living topics, discussions, and occult sections).
I understand that there will probably be a wave of criticism, but let’s be realistic. After these restrictions are introduced, there will be a mass registration surge just to reach the library, and the introduction threads will be flooded with meaningless posts — just so “it counts.” Some of those may come from real people, but most will be from bots. They’ll post once, wait a week, get access — and then download everything and re-upload it elsewhere. We can’t be protected from that, and honestly, we never will be. Anyone could do the same.
The risks remain under any system. People register, fulfill the formalities, download what they need — and disappear forever. Their goal is complete.
It seems we need a different approach — not just a post-count system, but a trust system. For example, a new member could go through a certain “evaluation”: an experienced member or moderator could observe their activity, draw conclusions, and manually grant or revoke access to the library if abuse is detected.
Alternatively, long-standing, trusted members could vote to grant access to a newcomer — a kind of community recommendation. Such a personalized, “living” system would make much more sense and be far safer than automated checks of formal criteria.
This would naturally motivate people to communicate in order to earn trust. The more they write, the better the community can understand who they really are. Often, people reveal their true nature at this stage — through their writing style, topics, or reactions in discussions. But of course, no one is completely protected here either: someone can earn trust, gain library access — and then disappear again into “eternal silence.”
To avoid that, it would make sense to add restrictions for inactive users: if someone hasn’t logged in or shown activity for a long time, their access to the library should be temporarily suspended. We need a living audience, not a graveyard of empty accounts.
If we’re being honest, how many truly active members are there on WF right now? Twenty, thirty, maybe fifty. The rest are silent. It’s those active members who actually form the community — their voices and trust should matter when granting access. Newcomers, meanwhile, need to be evaluated more carefully — the risk of trolls or even AI-generated accounts with unclear intentions is simply too high.
In this sense, the current restrictions lose meaning: formally they exist, but they’re easy to bypass. Yes, it looks like a step forward, but will it bring real benefit? Most likely, it will only increase the number of “empty” accounts and meaningless posts.
If the goal is to boost registration — sure, it will work. But what next? The person will get access — and then silence again. The forum will become filled with “dead” profiles.
That’s why I’d suggest considering a trust scale or a reputation-based voting system. Let respected members “recommend” newcomers, helping them earn access faster. This way, we can distinguish those who genuinely want to learn and contribute from those who only came to download files.
We should also remember the external factor: if books begin leaking into open sources, users will naturally go there — where no verification is required. In that sense, limiting access could even backfire against WF itself.
Now, about your words, Skulltaill.
You said: “I don’t want WF to turn into a file-sharing site.” But in essence, WF has long been much more than that. There are discussions, threads, and living conversations here. The forum is already far beyond mere file sharing — it’s precisely the combination of community and library that makes it unique.
You also mentioned: “Thousands of people register just to download books without contributing.”
But where’s the guarantee that this will change after the new restrictions? People will still be able to register, wait out the time limit, download what they need, and leave. The process just becomes longer and more frustrating — with the same outcome.
Yes, there’s hope that some will stay for the discussions, but you can’t force someone to be active. Especially if they’re introverted or simply prefer reading to posting.
As for a character limit in posts — that’s a questionable idea. Some people write briefly but to the point; others prefer to elaborate, like me. The main thing is meaning, not length. If you enforce a minimum, you’ll just end up with long, empty posts written only for formality’s sake.
In the end, newcomers won’t be discussing practice or magic — they’ll just “chat about nothing” to gain access.
And once they realize that occultism requires deep inner work, not superficial reading, they’ll simply leave — after flooding the forum with a dozen meaningless messages.
These are my thoughts. The idea of organizing library access makes sense and is logical in principle, but the technical execution raises doubts. It’s important not just to impose restrictions, but to build a trust-based system — one that strengthens the community instead of creating the illusion of activity.
The library is Great, but it's not what caused me to register!
