That sounds like a really good way to get ranked low by your peers on helpfulness and contribution to the team. The entire point is to not rank people, you are only looking at a single narrow metric at any given time, and those metrics are directly tied to employee's behavior rather than results. If you for example have your employees rank who they would ideally like to go to for peer mentorship, those who consistently land towards the top of the list must have both strong technical skills and good communication skills, whereas people on the low end of the ranking are likely deficient in at least one. There isn't really a way to sabotage that. Sure you can purposefully rate a rival low, but if everyone else rates them appropriately it doesn't really matter. There is really no way to come out ahead on that ranking without convincing a large fraction of the office that you are legitimately the better peer mentor.
I would also argue that if your organization is struggling with its employees intentionally sabotaging eachother to get ahead, you probably aren't dealing with a mutually assured mediocrity situation, and are more likely facing the exact opposite.