In my view of my past school life, I remember myself doing what I imagine any rational person would do.
As far as "rules" would go:
In school I noticed three types of rules. The first types of these rules I shall refer to as "arbitrary rules." These rules, if they were malign in any fashion, were generally not worth time it would take to construct an argument against them, nor were they worth the possible strain on the relationship between me and the rulemaker.
The second type of these rules were the "good rules." While generally few in number, these were rules that made life easier. By of the theoretical existence of this type of rule the creation of rules was justified. While I may not agree with this justification, this is where the heart of rulemaking lies. I could respect a rulemaker who stuck to this kind of rule most of the time and let the natural order remain as it was the rest of the time.
Standing as the opposite pole from the second type, the third type of rules is "bad rules." While generally created with a valid reason behind them, these rules were poorly executed. (It would usually be this execution, not the reason behind it, that would be the subject of my criticisms.) These were the rules I vocally spoke out against. When these rules were made, I would be one of the first to propose for a return to the status quo ante. To combat these rules, my weapons of choice were writing about the logical flaws of the rule and, on occasion, not abiding by the rule outright.
From the existence of these three types of rules, we can deduce three types of teachers based on what kind of rule they tended to make and/or enforce.
Teachers that largely created and/or enforced arbitrary rules were merely just another arbitrary face in the arbitrary sea; they could generally be tolerated and this was the best course of action. They have come and gone and their names will eventually be forgotten, at least by my memory.
Representing the shiny pinnacle of "doing their job right," the teachers that dominantly made and/or enforced good rules. These were teachers I could respect, and I would generally be forgiving of their "mistakes," barring any form of extreme infraction.
The last and most dreadful type, therefore, is the type that would usually create and/or enforce BAD rules. Throughout highschool, my simplest "solution" to these teachers was to transfer out of their class before the start of a new semester. The inherent problem in dealing with these teachers is that they are usually convinced that they are enforcing GOOD rules. (as bad rules usually have a valid reason behind them) Consequently, to challenge their rules would usually be interpreted as a challenge to their ethics, which would usually be minimally tolerated by the teacher, if at all. If I was ever naughty, it would have been in the classes of these teachers. My response to these teachers was most similar to my response to the type of rule they enforced: picking at the flaws of their system. Unless things deteriorated drastically, I preferred to not go over the teacher's head. The situation always allowed for discussion and debate, even if the teacher would not hear it. (in which case I WOULD go over their head) Usually, some form of compromise could be reached, albeit after much effort.
Remarkably, I never received a detention. If anything, I was careful and calculating in my actions. Qualify my post as you may. I prefer to view myself as the critical child, rather than the naught or good child.
