In the management theory and practice there are cases where the use of authority is necessary (e.g. for enforcing deadlines, for resolving conflicts, etc.). However, while I understand the need, I really do not understand the managers that have to use authority when left with no other argument. I had situations in the past when authority was necessary, but I was always reluctant and I have never used it without a strong argument (which has been kindly acknowledged). What I mean is that I cannot simply enforce something onto someone if I do not have a good reason for this and if I have not justified it in front of the involved parties.
The point is that sometimes the arguments of the parties in a discussion may seem equally important and valid, so arbitration and use of authority may be inevitable. One way to solve this is to base on previous facts like previous written discussions, agreements, procedures and practices about the same or similar matters. What if the other party simply doesn't accept the additional arguments? Well, I really do not know, but I think it speaks enough of the other party. In enterprise communities without good documentation management and constant change of authorities knowledge is easily lost over time. New rules and procedures are created every day, because nobody is aware or willing to accept what was previously defined. That is how legends are created.