I must say that I dislike the way the title question is stated — it is NOT a neutral question but instead suggests that the other person does not “know” how to use the resign button if they don’t resign when you believe they should resign.
TBH, to me this looks like a lack of respect towards the not resigning opponent, like, being prophylactically rude towards them; like, “until we know their motives, let’s diss them”.
That is true. Three passes by me allows me to force an outcome.
Only after the game is over and all dame and teire have been filled. Before then it’s a bug that it works
I personally thought this happens as a “show of respect” to the other player and didn’t even imagine someone could get angry over this.
You count your game, you lose, you want to tell the other player you respect his strength and virtually bow down again.
Yes, I forgot about that part.
If my opponent was way behind and plays until both players pass, I’d like at least to have the score in my game record. Otherwise why not click “estimate score” before the end of the game and resign at that moment?
thanks for sharing. the person who wrote the title question is a manipulative person
Well, no, I disagree: all I’d be willing to say is that the question is manipulative — let’s not go ad hominem (i.e. against the person) but rather ad rem (i.e. against the thing, in this case against the deed).
<edit>
And now I see that it was you who wrote that OP with the question … now I’m confused 
</edit>
Otherwise why not click “estimate score” before the end of the game
Isn’t it usually disabled in ranked games?
You are right, it’s usually disabled in ranked live games. I was confusing with correspondence games.
People need to learn how to use resign button Mr Crabz vs. walternewaccount
I agree, but its generally discouraged to publically shame a player. That’s what the “Report” button is for 
But the Report button is for when you believe someone has broken OGS rules, which isn’t the case here, whereas the forum you can report/talk about milder annoyances.
That is something maybe too ethical for a go server. Even if myself I’m on your side. In this game the moves have no sense in a perspective of winning the whole game since long ago, but they carry some sense in a more local and limited way. So how deep can the go server managers decide that you have to resign?
So is my paradox. Please learn to resign but until then do (almost) what you want as I m not competent to judge your pleasure in playing your game.
I’m curious at which point do people think white should’ve resigned?
That game actually adds an interesting angle on the ongoing discussions about the contentious triple pass to force AI adjudicated win feature: white was losing a lot and was passing successively once all territories settled, but black decided not to pass and score but kept on playing pointless moves inside his own territory (reducing his score but still winning lots), seemingly saying “I don’t want to score the game and win, I want you to resign for the greater subjugation to my skills in winning this game”, which is a bit cheeky and stalling itself. White kept on passing, so then the AI judge kicked in, I’m not sure offered to white and/or black and who accepted it, and the game ended by server decision. So if the proposal to only offer the server decision win dialog to the passer was implemented (and many people have argued in favour) because we assumed the triple passer is always the winner, this case is a counterexample.
It seems you also need to learn to pass when the game is finished?
Not actually a counterexample because the person passing does not lose anything by accepting the decision: they lose either way
There are many opportunities after move 35. I probably would have done at 39: two stones are captured, and white has no more plans to invade/reduce
It is a counterexample to
But it doesn’t mean applying that restriction is a bad idea. It means we eliminate:
Both fine IMO.