Is not resigning until mate a good policy?

I think it is. What do u guys reckon?

If you really want to piss your opponent off with poor sportsmanship, it's great. If you want to help your opponent practice his endgame technique, it's great. If you're hoping your opponent will have a stroke or heart attack or disconnect, good again. If you want to waste your time playing a lone king endgame against two rooks and three pawns, ... . It is your right to be checkmated, but it shows a lack of respect for the opponent and the game to make it a policy.
By the way, you are not resigning at all if you play until mate. You are just losing on the board. That way, like a president who loses an election, you never need to admit you lost, but you did.

There is no obligation whatsoever to resign. Letting the clock run simply to annoy the opponent is very disrespectful.

But it is fine to continue the game, as long as you are making your moves quickly. Especially for beginners it is advisable to play until mate. A an experienced player you resign, when a continuation of the game is a waste of time: no hope to flag or trick the opponent.

U can do that vs lower rated players, since u have a chance of a stalemate, but against higher rated players u have no chance.

Excellent policy. And don't forget to not make the move which leads to a mate-in-one for your opponent, much better to run down the clock. Makes lots of draw offers as well. Many years later, your opponent will tell stories to her grandchildren about the fond memories she has playing against you.

sometimes high rated players also fall into stalemate traps

You should play until you have no hope of even making a draw, then resign. The problem is that your opponent, being confident in themselves, believes that you have no hope before you believe it (because you don't know anything about them), and that risks annoying them - but it's their choice to be annoyed rather than enjoying the fact that they're winning the chess game. At your (and my) level people can and do hang whole pieces in blitz, or walk into stalemates, or even checkmates, so it's usually not unreasonable to play on for a little bit while down material, especially with Queens on the board; but if you're down a piece and 2 pawns in the endgame or something, then you might as well resign, because even if they hang the piece they'll still be winning.

Oh, and if it gets to a point where your opponent is mating you by force and you see it, then you might as well let them play it out rather than resigning (do *not* run the clock). If they see the mate there's no difference in the end, if not then you might still have chances to win (after all, they're missing easy mates!). And if your opponent complains about getting to put checkmate on the board, then you really have to wonder what joy they hope to find by playing chess.

If you feel like you can win/draw play onwards, if you can't win/draw resign it's as simple as that.

What about enjoying the game to the last drop and forgetting about winning is the only point to playing (it is one, but there is also the game itself, and its uniqueness, to see it completed, isn't that something satisfying). Not a policy, a curiosity. But i admit it should be of mutual consent. Also, nobody in fast time control would likely pay attention to just one game that way...

@sparowe14 That makes no sense. Any opponent can blunder. If your opponent has a winning position, why shouldn't you make them win it? You'll probably lose anyway, but you have the right to keep fighting. That is not disrespectful at all, that's just logical.