Evidently I violated the Good Sportsmanship policy for punishing those who refuse to resign.

Being a jerk is one of the reasons for such actions but it is not a necessary reason - and a jerk would not care about a reprimand.  There are ways a person can justify such actions and explaining how suboptimal those reasons are is one way of limiting the occurrences.

Decades ago when I was in my early 30s there was a player who trash talked about how poor my play was, about how ridiculous my moves were, how little I understood the game, etc.  I calmly made all of the preparatory moves for an attack, launched it, destroyed his position, and then returned to my high school adolescence for one game and mated him with the h pawn.  And I did it all without saying a word or showing that I was paying any attention to him.  Whether or not he deserved such a response is debatable but I'm not going to apologize for it.

I think the logical counter-argument is simply that a jerk would like to continue being a jerk...and thus complain about the reprimand.

Now in blitz/bullet...the clock is part of the game and even GM's try to run out the clock against others. That is acceptable, but not in slower time controls where it is...just being a jerk.

I think you misunderstood that. If they don't realize the reason I promote 5 horses and dance them around the board is because I'm messing with them, and they think I'm doing that because I don't know how to checkmate - they are wrong. Absolutely 100% they are wrong. 

What I think you're saying is they are not wrong to have that strategy of not resigning. That's something different than you responded to there.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/58477871679

i like this guys style. he resigned as we entered the end game only because he lost a couple pawns. that's a show of respect. the polar opposite of refusing to resign when your opponent has a queen, rook, two knights and five pawns and you only have your king.

But you are giving them reason to think they are right. Low rated players do this often. It's even possible some of your opponents cannot perform simple checkmates, and therefore assume you can't either. 

Either way it seems counterproductive. If you feel they are wasting your time how does you wasting time address that? Wouldn't it just make more sense to prove you know how to checkmate? If you've noticed, the pattern is promoting more pawns in an already solid winning position is something more common in low rated players. People who think they know a little bit do this because they think they are flexing. High rated players do this MUCH less often. 

I understand what you're saying but they are still wrong.

They may not be wrong to think what they think. But they are still wrong.

Whether they are wrong is entirely determined by my intent. If I'm intending to mess with them and I already setup a mate in 1 and I know it, then they are wrong if they think I just can't checkmate them. 

Because it's fun, it's cathartic, it feels good to mess with them. It's stops being a waste of time and turns into something I enjoy. 

OK, good luck. 

Watch your tone. I'm not going to continue talking to you if you can't speak in a polite and respectful manner.

1. I believe chess.com would consider this stalling under review. I think you are taking their definition too literally and that they would consider it stalling in spirit.

2. If your next move can deliver checkmate there is no move that will give you a bigger advantage.

3. If the player in the weaker position can move they have a chance to win because their opponent could lose (lost connection etc) or resign on their next move. If their opponent can deliver checkmate on their move but purposely does not do so they are stalling (or whatever term you prefer. Either way it is unsporting.)

Doing sub-promotions is a right every player has. I saw people drawing and losing the game after sub-promoting. That's why chess is fun.

Look, someone being a 'jerk', is often just not able to see that they are being a 'jerk'...any further discussion on this is pointless.

     First you decide that people who don't resign quickly enough to suit you need to be "taught a lesson", so you deliberately waste a lot of their (and your) time and effort needlessly dragging out games. When you get spanked for time-wasting you fume about how unfair it is.

     Hopefully both of you have learned a lesson.

"When someone doesn't resign a hopelessly lost position, I like to mess with them by promoting everything (usually to horses) and making a bunch of joke moves before finally delivering checkmate."

If this was the only thing I knew about you....which I guess it pretty much is.... my impression of you would be that you are a spoiled, self-centered egotist.

If I did this (what you do) in a chess game, I'd go to bed that night feeling like a total jerk, and I'd be asking both God and my opponent for forgiveness the next day. 

How you gonna get mad at the second person dragging out games and not the first person needlessly dragging out games? Ironic. They're both bad sportsman

    Yes they are. I haven't bothered to look at the games involved, but there a lot of chess "experts", videos, lessons, etc that tell low rated players to never resign. Some players believe they can learn from the way a stronger player goes about cashing in a winning position. Maybe others are wasting time out of spite, but doing the same thing you are complaining about and then whining about being taken to task for it is arrogant, childish, and stupid. Then he starts a forum to get others to sympathize with him. What a jerk.

Everyone has different reasons for not resigning, but it usually isn't to intentionally delay.

Stalling means not making moves. It doesn't mean anything else and if a person makes moves when they're losing, then you have to make moves to beat them. You can make no criticism of people who make moves. If you choose to make bad moves rather than win, again it's their choice if they play on or resign. It's of no consequence if they aren't stalling, which means not making moves and not resigning when they are hopelessly lost.

Here, I'll fix your title.

"Evidently, I violated the Good Sportsmanship Policy by punishing those who want to learn from their mistakes."

All better!

My Opinion is that the game ends with checkmate.  If I'm in a loosing position, thats because I made some mistakes, maybe my opponent will.  Also by playing, I think I can learn more from them.  I dont think its bad sportsmanship it they are still playing, but to just let the game time out, that's lame.

   post 70....."Because it's fun, it's cathartic, it feels good to mess with them. It's stops being a waste of time and turns into something I enjoy".             Joy.......another Trump.