You should ask Talon, not me. But why are you arguing against it if you don't know what meaning it is supposed to have?

No, I'm asking what you think the meaning of it is.

Me? As I said earlier in the thread, my view on the like system is to allow people to get involved in a thread without the need of those "+1" or "agreed" comments.

Now, what do you think is the meaning of thie system?

But you CAN'T like your own posts...   

FAIL!!! 

:P

Hmmm...    ...lots going on here between @potato_hamster and @JEMC and I honestly haven't been following this exact argument as closely as I would have liked...   ...and to go back now and re-read all of the posts you guys have written at this point, seems like too much work for me. :P

I'm going to take a wild stab here, and guess that JEMC is more inline with the thinking and implementation of this from the start. The SOLE PURPOSE of adding this, was to have a simple way to say "Agreed!" - without having to waste time (and forum space), just to quote a user and submit that. That was the entire point. It's also the same reason there is no "dislike" button. Think about how this forum has run to date:

 - Users can always respond "Agreed!" to a thread at anytime - no additional verbiage needs to be added to that statement, because you're simply stating the fact that you agree with what the author said, and you're letting everybody else know you agree, as well!
 - Users could NEVER just type "Disagree!!" and not fill in the appropriate "Why" part of that statement. They would be laughed out of the forums or, more likely, reported to mods for spamming.

Agreeing with a poster requires no reasoning for why you agree with that person - you agree with them, case closed. If you DISagree with a poster though, you damn well better have (or at least, attempt to have) solid reasoning to backup your statement.

And as write this post, I start to see why I should have always had the names of the "likes" public knowledge - because if the original (and entire) intent of this functionality, is to replace the "Agreed!" or "+1" or "Well said!" type posts (which obviously have a username tied to them), then "liking" a post should have the same exact effect by showing who is doing the "liking". By hiding the names, this is definitely subject to abuse - consider it akin to typing "Agreed!" with the username and avatar blocked out.

I did say when I started this thread, that if the decision is to open up the names to the public, I would wipe out the table and start fresh (with users having the advanced warning that others will KNOW which posts they "like") - which is exactly how stating "Agreed!" in a post, works today. So really, if the goal was to allow for a way to replace the "Agreed!" posts, why wouldn't we want to display the names???

And for the record, I will state this all one more time so it's perfect clear for everyone (even though I've said it dozens of times already):
 - There will not be a "dislike" button added - please do not ask for it, it's just not happening.
 - The "likes" will never influence forum posts (the way they do in article comments) - posts will remain in chronological order, the way they always have been.

Counter-counter point: If you don't agree, then the like functionality wasn't intended for you...  

counter-counter-counter point: It's not a matter of me agreeing, you can't force the user base to use a feature the only way you intend on having it working. It's kinda naive of you to expect that every user of this site is going to only use the like feature in lieu of writing a "agreed/+1" comment instead, isn't it? You don't actually you think everyone that liked the original post in this thread "liked" your post instead of posting an "agreed/+1"-style comment, do you?

P.S. If the like feature is only for the likely less than 1% of users that have ever posted an "agreed/+1" style comments that make up an infinitesimally small portion of the comments on this site, then why bother programming a feature that you know most users have no intention of using, and why bother getting so much feedback on it? Furthermore, if you are happy catering to such a small portion of the userbase, why are you so openly against the users that post "disagree/-1" style comments? Why are you discriminating against them while favoring their counterparts?

If your name is exposed for liking something (which is the very point of this thread and the question I was posing in the first place), then why on Earth would you like something you disagree with? You haven't quite explained how this could/would be even a remote possibility?

As I just explained in my post above - is there ever a time in these forms, where a user would type "Disagree!" and not be forced to follow that up with WHY details?? Agreeing with a post does not require additional explanation - disagreeing with a post ALWAYS requires follow-up reasoning. That's Forum Etiquette - 101.