In [this question](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/134234/how-can-i-regain-a-professional-atmosphere-with-someone-who-may-have-seen-me-mis) the OP acknowledges behaving unprofessionally in the office and is concerned that this may have been witnessed by a female colleague, who is now acting uncomfortable around him.

A [now deleted, previously highest-voted answer](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/134234/how-can-i-regain-a-professional-atmosphere-with-someone-who-may-have-seen-me-mis/134239#134239) (even after 20 downvotes) advises that if his colleague discusses OP's unprofessional behaviour, then OP should lie about it, make a false complaint against her, and possibly seek to initiate action for defamation (which would presumably require giving false evidence to assert that her claims were untrue). (Update: that answer has now been deleted as "rude or abusive".)

Depending on jurisdiction, this course of action is likely to involve breaking laws related to perjury and/or retaliation. Further, I would have thought it self-evident that lying and attacking a colleague to cover up one's own misconduct is grossly unethical behaviour... and yet 84 people upvoted this answer. Several other answers also endorsed the same "lie and deny" approach.

I checked the FAQs for guidance on this issue but didn't find anything relevant. Does this board have any policy or guidelines to deter answers that advocate blatantly illegal/unethical behaviour, beyond the usual downvoting mechanism? Or is "cover your ass no matter what it takes" acceptable here?

A [related question](https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3442/how-to-handle-answers-that-are-high-risk-to-the-op) covers answers that are "high risk to the OP", but my concern here is not whether this advice might backfire; it's that it might function exactly as intended.