The gaming of 4/6 you describe is a case where anyone doing so gives up the slightest bit of credibility in their slate-making. At least one variant of the current round of mad dogs this year has a fig leaf of credibility among many of their own followers. A slate that has such obvious evasions as you mention means that everyone else can see that you don't really care about nominating works you personally like, but just want to maintain some sort of party discipline, and even your own followers are going to have difficulty swallowing the party line, I think. That doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, since the crazier contingent Doesn't Care and explicitly wants to destroy the Hugo Awards, but seems to me that the more obviously crazy one gets, the harder it is to maintain any credibility except among the True Believers.

This should not be construed as an argument in favor of or against 4/6 or any variant thereof. I'm just trying to understand the arguments that are likely to be deployed both in favor of and against it. It really helps me to referee the debate if I understand what all of the sides are saying; if someone meanders too much, I'll interrupt them and ask them to get back on point or else yield the floor.