It isn't the only question we've seen that has this particular dynamic, but this recent question has some features that I think are problematic for IPS and the standards that have been developed for the stack.
There are some other issues (such as not really having an interpersonal component, as currently written) which we don't need to address here, but the question itself seems to have two undesirable features with regard to the stack:
The constraints in the question are diametrically opposed, according to the definitions the OP offered. The OP's definition of dishonesty is pretty expansive, including expressing untrue information as though it were true as well as declining to correct untrue information they become aware of. These would seem to preclude any participation in the Santa Claus tradition, and indeed that's the problem the OP presents here. The OP wants both conditions to be true and has not (perhaps cannot) offer any alternative outcomes that would be satisfactory.
The OP describes that they have already violated each of these constraints, to some degree or another, but does not indicate that any flexibility is acceptable in answers. In offering answers, people have (thus far, perhaps not necessarily) have dealt with this by disregarding the conditions premised in the question.
The result is answers which simply disregard inconvenient portions of the question-- roughly evaluating to "ignore your moral position, even though it's the crux of the question".
These answers could be viewed as frame challenges, though they could perhaps do with some tidying up if that's how they are intended. But I think that there may be a pair of issues:
They don't offer much of an alternative view of the situation to the one held by the OP but instead simply ignore the constraints which are inconvenient to their suggested solutions (I'm interested in how this interacts with the general respect the premises of the asker guideline)
Because the premise which is challenged here is the OP's personal moral philosophy, I don't know that we can discuss it very well (in the frame challenge mode or otherwise). Whether or not it's right or wrong to lie to one's children, about Santa or anything else, is way outside of the scope of the stack. That is to say, I'm not sure we can offer effective frame challenges to a frame based on something like personal moral codes in the SE format on this stack.
I've held off voting to close the question or flagging answers because the question has already generated a fair amount of attention and my opinions here don't seem to be reflected by other experienced IPS users or mods, so a meta post seemed like a better option.
Other issues aside, this question seems to be inherently unanswerable while meeting the OP's stated criteria. This makes the question less clear than it might be and engenders answers which are less likely to meet site standards (whether broadly useful or not).
What should we do with a question which itself precludes answers? It's hard to respect the asker's premises, and altering them (as through suggested edits) radically alters what the question even is.