Exactly why we should not have a transparent like system and it should be the end of consideration for the concept ... 

Makes it very apparent that the victim will HAVE a reason to be hostile against the users who liked the ghastly posts in the future ... 

And how is that any different from being hostile to people who post opinions that are not popular?

If I'm going to be attacked, I'd rather be able to defend myself and explain why the other side is wrong and why I believe what I believe. But I cannot defend myself if the other side is anonymous and if they hide behind a dislike.

If you want to avoid hostility then you are condemned to NEVER speak your mind, never agree with something controversial, never even say something as innocent as "I love my Playstation 4" cause there will ALWAYS be someone somewhere that will think: How dare you love that piece of shit? My favorite system is the other one, so how dare you say you love your Playstation?

Right now you are voicing your disagreement with a transparent like system. Aren't you worried someone is going to be hostile towards you for that? The answer is you are not worried obviously or you would not have posted your opinion about the like system. So if you are not worried about posting an opinion with your nickname in full daylight why are you worried to like something and having people know you did?

But as I've already told you, Anonymity also allows for the highest degree of dishonesty. That is also self evident. They can pretend to have any opinion, thoughts, feelings, say whatever they want, act in whatever way they want, and face literally no consequences for it. It can be completely dishonest to express an opinion you actually don't have to hurt someone else, and it also means that mobs can form and actions can be made more extreme because of anonymity. Look at 4Chan. Look at trolling in general. Look at how many anonymous threats internet users get. This happens because these users are anonymous and because there will be no consequences for their actions. Sure anonymity allows for absolute honesty, but it also allows for absolute toxicity. It's very much a double edged sword.

Just take this site here. Imagine every user had to use their real name on their user accounts. Just imagine how many less moderations would be made in the run of a day But since we do use user names, you're already anonymous, therefore whether you know the usernames of those who like posts is completely irrelevant. It's not like a user liking a post automatically means that they agree with the opinions expressed within that post anyways, so why does it matter to you if the usernames are displayed with the likes?

@Bold Very different ... 

The like system can already be abused for purposes such as supporting trolling/flaming posts which I don't think is currently in against rules but making it transparent reveals those shit mischievous perpetrators which can directly draw undue tension in future discussions between the users who the liked the posts and the victims or ire from others ... 

Likes being transparent just makes it far easier to encourage shit posting towards other users ... 

@Bold: Really? So if I tell you here in written form how I don't like what you say or how I don't like you or anything else that is antagonistic in nature, that's not reason to worry about future forum wars?

But a SIMPLE dislike bearing my nickname and you will hunt me down and cut off my head cause that's the ultimate act of war from me and the forum will be set on fire because of that?

As for supporting flaming/trolling posts, I think you are seeing too much into this. If someone trolls or flames or does anything against the rules, a mod will deal with that person right? As for likes, who cares?  No one is going to be like: OMG look at the likes at the bottom of that troll post.

Now even considering the logic of what you say I still don't get it. How are transparent "Likes" going to encourage shit posts towards other users? If anything it's anonymous likes that can do that. If a post is trashy or an attack or a threat, who is going to be stupid enough to transparently like it? Everybody would immediately see who the person liking a "bad" post is. It's ANONYMOUS likes that are going to be easy to make on trash/troll/threat posts.

And finally I believe you are seeing too much into this. A "Like" is just a small thing to tell someone that you agree with their post. If someone says something smart or relevant I may very well let him/her know that I like what he/she said and I want him/her to know that I agree with their comment.

I remember when the VGChartz Buddy was implemented and many people were against it. Nowadays almost no one would like to see it go away. The same will probably happen with the likes button.

Anyway, I think that yes, the names of those who have liked a post need to be showed. Not only because it helps with transparency, but also because part of the reason behind the likes implementation is to avoid the "+1" or "agreed" comments that add nothing to the ongoing discussion.

There are people that feel the need to be present on certain threads/discussions even if they have nothing to add, so that +1 response is their way to get involved in it. With a likes button that shows their name, there's a chance that they may be happy with that and not make unnecessary comments.

As for the unlike button, I'm happy it's not going to happenas it would be abused as we've seen in the news articles. Plus, if you don't agree with what someone has said, it must be for a reason, so isn't it better to quote that user and write why you don't agree with him/her?

Why were people against the buddy? How can that potentially negatively impact any user's experience on this site? If it can't, then it makes no sense to compare it to the like system, does it?

As for putting the name on a like, if that happens, I can't wait to see users be told that they hold a certain opinion because they liked a comment or two.

I don't really remember why they were against it (I was a while ago, you know). Probably because people thought it was annoying. What I do remember is that we were promised an option to make it stick at the top of the page, something that, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't happened after all those years.

Also, I don't see how a like systen that is completely voluntary, can cause any negative impact. It's we, the users, that have the responsability to use it for good, for bad or not use it at all. Heck, in the days it's been implemented, I've only used three times, and two of them were in the thread were its implementation was announced. And I haven't seen many posts being liked, so I fail to see how it can be so bad.

As for using what we've liked against us... what can I say, that says a lot more about the users that try to use it this way, people that should be avoided and that won't last long in the site, than about the rest of us. After all, if I like a post it is because I find it funny, because I agree with what it says or because it helped me in any way. There's nothing to be ashamed for that.

It's pretty different. The antagonistic posts you make could be moderated but users of the liked posts DON'T have to be moderated ... 

In a way, the like system itself can be used as a tool for proxy trolling/flaming and I don't think you understand the intentions behind the users liking the posts either (such as promoting rancid behaviour) so keeping the users who liked the popular/unpopular posts in anonymity protects them from potential harassment in the future ... 

A like system changes the social order along these boards but making it transparent makes it a far more powerful tool ostracizing other unpopular groups or users ... 

Posters like VGP will actually try to hunt me down by baiting me cause I hold an unpopular view (even though an expert evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins agrees with me) that he is outraged with but a transparent like system makes it far easier for other people to keep track of me for my other views about the subject that they don't agree with ... 

But you say it yourself. VGP (whoever that is) can hunt you down by baiting you cause you hold an unpopular view. But correct me if I'm wrong but that unpopular view, you must have expressed it with a POST in which you have written said unpopular view right? So you are hunted down by that person for something you have written and I assume you don't mind since you have written that unpopular opinion somewhere. So again I don't see the difference between you being hunted down cause you WROTE an unpopular opinion compared to you being hunted down cause you like someone else's unpopular opinion.

If someone wants to hunt me down or bait me cause I love Einstein, I don't care that he/she hates me cause I WROTE a post where I say I love Einstein or cause I liked someone else's post saying he/she loves Einstein.

In this example you don't mind writing that you love Einstein and being hunted down for that but you mind "Liking" someone else's post that says they love Einstein and liking that post in your opinion will cause you more problems than you writing yourself a post where you put in full words that you love Einstein...

Ultimately the solution to this problem is rather simple. If you really feel that liking someone's post could bring trouble for you, don't like any posts and you'll be ok. Me personally I like Einstein and I also like Richard Dawkins, I love how he kicks religion's ass and I'm not afraid to say it or to LIKE the post of someone else that would say it. And if someone later on wants to try and hold against me the fact that I liked such a post, I'll simply double down and reply: Sure I loved that post you mentioned cause I do love Einstein and Dawkins, did you think I was going to recant just because you don't like me liking Einstein and Dawkins?

But that's just me. Like I said, feel free to never touch the "Like" button and you'll be ok.