1:27 AM
A: Reward duplicate closing: +5 for the first voter

Philip CoulingPlease no! Please lets not clog up the re-open queues by incentivising closure 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 somethi...

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.
"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."
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.
If you're going to give an example of wrong duplicate closure, maybe give a real-life one instead of making up one that nobody asked or dup-voted.
Just because some people will misuse an incentive feature in an attempt to game it does not mean that the incentive feature cannot do more good than harm. Some people game or abuse the rep system already by fraudulent/serial voting. Some people try to farm suggested edit by making useless edits. The answer we came up was not to remove those reputation incentives- it was to add detection and review systems for abuse (serial voting / vote-circle detection and the suggested edit review queue, where people can reject edits that make no improvement)
the comments I'm making are intended to be for the public discussion. my understanding is that moving discussion to chat is more for extended discussion not necessary for understanding the main posts, or when things need to be hashed out (with a lot of back and forth) that end up turning into edits to the post to resolve problems with the post like lacking certain details, which is not the case here. I am intentionally not using that chat room.
@starball I offered a chat. Please don't spam comments. What I am describing is not abuse of the system. It's incentivising compalceny. If some one is already on the fence about a close vote, giving them rep to close would tip the scales. And there is nothing you could do about it because that would not be "abuse". You may dislike my answer but please don't waste time spamming comments. Feel free to write your own answer.