10:35 PM
A: Reward duplicate closing: +5 for the first voter

Philip CoulingPlease no! I see way too many false positive dupes for this to feel a "safe" thing to do. The current mechanism for closing as dupe requiring only 5 or 3 votes mean that too few people sometimes have the ability to close something as dupe. Not to mention the "gold badge hammer". I've seen too m...

If a proposed dup-target turns out to be wrong, the asker should edit to clarify why it's not a dup-target- I.e. why the question is fundamentally different, and why the solutions there don't work for them. Askers get directly requested to do that when notified of a dup-vote. Dup-votes go to review queues, where reviewers should look at the post to find such clarifications.
"People are too lax when checking other's dupe suggestion." There's the actual problem. But if the asker does nothing to clarify, I don't wholly blame the reviewers.
@starball AFAIK askers still cannot block 5 dupe votes. The current mechanism doesn't have a "vote to keep open" right there on the page (outside the review queues). The problem with this proposal is that it incentivises casting the close vote with little to no feedback to the one casting the vote on whether it was right or not.
The asker's power to edit their own question is their power to (not block, but) prevent incorrect dup-votes.
@starball I am discussing blatantly wrong dupe votes. Not marginally unclear if they are dupe or not. And they are just one user. The fact is that closing doesn't work as a yes / no voting system and only requires 5 complicit users to all say "yes". Incentivising them to say "yes" would be a very bad idead.
"I frequently see people erroneously flagging dupe just because an answer might be the same, despite the question being wholly different", See the FAQ. It refers to the founders' guidance for correct duplicate closure, which mostly supports your perspective, but that very same FAQ answer also says "Questions may be duplicates if they have the same (potential) answers. This includes not only word-for-word duplicates, but also the same idea expressed in different words."
10:35 PM
@starball see my foot note and tell me those are the same question. You seem to believe I'm discussing marginal edge cases. I'm not. I'm discussing many year's worth of observations on blatantly wrong duplicate flags.
If a proposed dup-target is blatantly wrong... that's what review queues and reopen-votes are for. If an asker really thinks a dup-closure is wrong but don't have reopen-vote privileges, they can take it up on meta or maybe mod-flag, but preferably take it up on meta.
@starball re-opening is rare enough and slow enough. We absolutely should not be making that problem worse by insentivisng people close more false positive dupes. That's the whole point of this answer here.
Also, your link URL seems to be wrong. And you should take it up on meta and reopen vote if you think the dup-closure is wrong.
@starball. you are totally missing the point. False positive closures are bad. Incentivising them is a bad idea. I don't care if they can be "fixed" by reopening. Incentivising closure is just going to clog up the re-open queues even more!