No, Wulfsiege, the game was NOT drawn by the concept of the "Insufficient Material" draw rule.
It was drawn by this site's *false* implementation of it.
The Insufficient Material rule says nothing about having only a king and a knight, or a king and a bishop.
It says that there is not enough material for a checkmate to happen by either side.
So it was not a positional win when the game timed out; it was a material win that got counted as a draw.
If you really are not sure about this I suggest you look up the FIDE definition of "Insufficient Material", because yours is obviously wrong.
The easy fix is to never count a game as a draw on timeout except a) the enemy has nothing left but the King and you timed out b) it's King+Bishop vs. King+Rook, because those are the only 2 regular material force balances that can constitute "only one side" being unable to checkmate, while the other still can.
It's equally as fair as this site's incomplete support for the "Insufficient Material" draw rule. That uses a list of basic material schemes! So why shouldn't draw on timeout? It's fair and balanced; your argument is not.
Any counterexamples to where it fails?
Otherwise, stop being an arrogant ass and start giving valid examples.
Because it's really you who's dragging this out under the simple notion of having an "original" opinion that is not going to hold through the whole way.
Most people here already have caught on that I am a moderator here, perhaps not yourself, so if you think that "I'm" dragging this out and "proving you right", any attitude issues won't spontaneously win you any debate against staff.