And who exactly is to judge what is important and reasonable and what isn't? I would assume the person making the decision. Which in that case would mean that what I said before is exactly what you are saying.

Let's say two staff members of equal rank really think they know whats right to about a situation. For simplicity, two GPs, one thinks a guy should be banned and one doesn't. According to what you are saying they one should go on banning and and the other should keep unbanning the guy over and over again because they both think its really important and they both "know" that they're right, and screw what anyone else might say. I've actually seen a miniature version of this actually happen on UN, but fortunately since we have staff hierarchies there, the GP Chief was able to step in and take control of the situation.

If you are being told as a staff member to do something that is absolutely against everything you stand for, then sure, its probably time to fight it or quit. This doesn't mean that every time you have a slight disagreement over the way something is done you should just say screw it and do what you want. That would be a huge, huge mess.