I am sure we have all been there. Probably on both sides of the board. I am a little biased as I have anywhere from 80 to 120 games in progress at anytime. Not that I am in a hurry but when you have an obvious advantage in pieces or the door is quickly closing I find it a bit irritating in a gentleman's game (terminology only, finer gender included) that resigning is not an option with some folks. I have come across a couple points of view I would like to submit for your approval (or not).
1)"It is generally considered proper chess etiquette to resign clearly lost positions. The proper time to resign should vary with one’s chess ability. Most beginners should probably play on until they are checkmated. But more advanced players should resign clearly lost positions when they are certain that if they were on the other side of the position, they could beat even a master." "A Quick Guide to the Rules and Etiquette of Tournament Chess" (2nd edition) by Steven Craig Miller.
2) This is one side of an argument that I believe is the most accurate.
Because it is disrespectful to your opponent to prolong a game.
Nothing of importance is to be learned.
The essence of chess is to learn from your mistakes.
There is no honor in relying on an opponents blunder for a stalemate.
Top players do it
We strive to be like top players.
Accept the inevitable.
In tournaments, I have a responsibility not to prolong the tournament for everyone.
An outcome can be clearly seen and understood.
An outcome is 100% certain.
My opponent has demonstrated that he probably has the ability to achieve checkmate.
I don't want to be childish or mean.
Its the right thing to do and I know it.
My opinion is a simple one. If the roles were reversed what would you like to have happen?