Are you a violent or a pacifist checkmater?

LOL @ Bodhidharma

As for the question, I think I disagree with the wording. If there's more than one checkmate, I don't care which one to go for. It's when there's not a definite checkmate that there's a decision to make. So to me, the real question is whether I'd play a risky sacrifice to try and mate the king instead of playing a safer, longer game of trading down to a favorable endgame. 

I used to be the type who wouldn't play a sac unless I was positive it wins, but I've been playing gambits lately and learning that sometimes sacrificing for an attack is a good plan, even if you don't see for sure how the attack leads to mate. So right now, I could go either way on that question, depending on the exact scenario. If I'm not sure a sac will lead to a definite win, I'm getting better at finding moves that will increase the opportunities to create such an attack, so I'm likely to delay the sac for a move or two if I think it'll increase the odds. But I'm not always afraid to go for it, either.

--Fromper

I go the safest route.  If I only think I see a mate but I know I see gain of material, I'll take the material and build from there.

I never slam down a piece and I almost never announce it is mate even.  I just make the play and sit back and look over the board more.  If it's mate, then both of us will come to that conclusion soon enough.