Soaking screams food poisoning to me; especially with unclean water. Perhaps this is not a risk if done right, but this could be why it's not done.

Definitely, for example if people are bikeshedding (vigorously discussing something that doesn't matter very much)

Another proposal: Visibility karma remains 1 to 1, and agreement karma acts as a weak multiplier when either positive or negative.

So:

• A comment with [ +100 | 0 ] would have a weight of 100
• A comment with [ +100 | 0 ] but with 50✅ and 50❌ would have a weight of 100 + log10(50 + 50) = 200
• A comment with [ +100 | 100✅ ] would have a weight of say 100 * log10(✓100) = 200
• A comment with [+0 | 1000✅ ] would have a weight of 0.

Could also give karma on that basis.

However thinking about it, I think the result would be people would start using the visibility vote to express opinion even more...

Would you gift your karma if that option was available?

This is good for calibrating what the votes mean across the responses

A little ambiguous between  "disagree karma & upvote karma should have equal weight" and "karma should have equal weight between people"

I think because the sorting is solely on karma, the line is "Everything above this is worth considering" / "Everything below this is not important" as opposed to "Everything above this is worth doing"

It's karma - which is kind of wrong here.

One situation I use strong votes for is whenever I do "upvote/disagree" or "downvote/agree". I do this to offset others who tend not to split their votes.

I think some kind of "strong vote income", perhaps just a daily limit as you say, would work.