What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?

I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it's over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?

If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.

I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we're not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.

Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.

As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can't assume to know what somebody does or doesn't know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.

Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).

Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.

Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.

I specifically made sure to include that I specified "in good faith". That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I'm not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it's sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.

As for somebody being perceivably "annoyingly obtuse", that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn't waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.