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

So, someone does not want to resign and wastes your time... Then, you try to prolong that game as much as possible to waste more of your time?

I don't get it

"You want to resign? No rush. There's always a chance." -- Garry Kasparov

I do that all the time when people dont resign - I take all their pieces, then promote everything  into Queens, and sacrifice them one by one, or underpromote and move my pieces back into the starting squares, etc. 

*The person who does not resign is indeed the poor sportsman here* 

and just like Chess.com invests millions in anti-cheating measures but they let every cheater back in if they "pinky promise" to not cheat again, it's also appalling they dont punish those to stall the game by no resigning, but take it out on the other party. 

Wow. What a garbage site.

As I stated earlier, an arbiter could use the FIDE rule (10.2) about not trying to win by normal means and award a draw (shouldn't be done until the opponent is under two minutes).  So here is an answer to your request about the rules.

I'm going to throw out a question. At what certainty, piece, or point advantage, does it become "proper etiquette" for a player to resign?

If we can come to an agreement on that, I will happily begin resigning before a player checkmates me. I could care less if a player stalls via demonstrating their unique pawn promotion strategies. I actually enjoy playing chess (contrary to what my chess bio says), winning or losing. Maybe I'll still learn something, or even better, get a stalemate. It's a lot like letting a bad movie play out. Some people just like finishing what they started. Also, I like being able to "punish" my opponents by simply closing the game as swift/efficient as possible. When people end the game it takes the fun out and I lose the practice closing a winning position. Imagine always winning winning positions because of a resignation, and then to your surprise in a tournament with money/rating on the line people are playing on and you experience your first lost "winning" position. The practice is good for you.

The proper etiquette for when a player should resign will vary from person to person.  Not even forced mate in one will get unanimous agreement and has changed over time (it used to be considered proper to play it out so that the opponent could demonstrate the brilliance of their checkmate - on chess.com only playing out the mate will give the opponent the chance to get the killer <piece> achievements).

It doesn't change your opinion. Nor are you changing mine.

Reasonable people can disagree and this issue is inherently subjective. I am fine that you don't agree with me. You aren't though, you want to cram your view down my throat and state it as fact. It's not fact. You just disagree with me.

I've already answered this several times but the answer is that it's fun to promote everything and mess with them. 

I wouldn't really call it bad etiquette not to resign. It's very normal. It's more like like the clueless behavior of a noob who doesn't know when they should resign so they play it safe and never do. It's not bad etiquette to be a clueless noob. But it can be annoying, offensive and/or funny to encounter clueless noobs doing clueless noob things. In this case, because the logic behind their tactic is that they are hoping you are even more clueless and more of a noob than they are.

   We started discussing a chess game and now we're into "clueless noob" behaviour.    I guess the only thing I can add is, we should all eat feces because 50 billion flies can't be wrong.

  Oh, sorry......that belongs in my Pet thread.

Probably all automated the only thing required for you to be limited is the number of people that click a button the actual context of what you do or opinions are probably completely irrelevant outside of actions that auto flag the system without prompt.  So your stated reasons don't matter to the computer and if you do get actioned and appeal a random underpaid mod who serves your ticket will most likely copy paste you a generic response after the action is already resolved  and continuing to browse reddit on their phone.   

Meow

This shows me that you are not serious about chess. I'm glad I will never wind up playing against you. I'm here to study chess and play chess, not "mess with" others.

If the other player insists on continuing in a position you think is hopeless, why don't you just checkmate them if you are so good? Why are you wasting time by "messing with" them?

He wants to punish them, but I fail to see how would they consider that a punishment.

I'm not answering this question any more. People can read the thread if they want to know. It's been answered like 5 times.

Unless for some reason they wanted a lot of negative attention. 

In todays world it's becoming harder and harder to say someone "would not do this". 

True. And bad sportsmanship in general is the exception, but when it comes things can get really nasty.

some people never resign in chess, i never resign in forums. you'll have to checkmate me.

Its all in the title of the thread "punishing those who refuse" (to do what you want them to).

You punish someone, chess.com punishes you.  Simple.