So I am not saying 'eliminate the clear draw', simply define it as 'lotto or draw' , so that the refuser is obliged to lotto immediately, no 10 minutes, not any delay at all. Any proof that they made a backwards move means guilty.
The draw refusal is presently established in the rules by a time delay of the game, whether that delay is 5 minutes for a clear draw or 10 minutes for a non-clear one. It is not as you desire a simple illustration that an immediate failure to suicide or lotto one's last piece has occurred, as in this case. I would agree that there are different scenarios, as Napoleon was getting at, and maybe he is correct that we should include the single piece situation featured in that game represented a clear draw. The more I think about it, that I would support.
Whether we have a clear draw or a no-progress draw, though, I would always argue that the purpose of the rules is punish the wasting of time aspect of a draw refusal, which is extremely objective. Did X amount of time pass? Yes? Then it's a refusal and a fact that is eminently provable. But requiring someone to lotto their pieces is a bit more nebulous. Does the fact a guy slips up and pursues the plaintiff one square, and then getting caught in a screenshot showing he didn't immediately head to lotto prove he was not going to lotto on the very next move? And then what if our friendly draw refuser with only one remaining piece to move does turn to lotto but there are two to three reasonable choices for the guy, and we see him hesitate. He first approaches one, then moves away toward another, but then back again to the first target in a couple of screenshots that are separated by only one minute of time. Does this prove the guy was not going to go for the first one? Does it prove he was wasting time? Maybe he rethought things and was going to hit the first target piece, but in two static screenshots only one minute apart he appears to merely be going back and forth. Should this player get slammed for draw refusal if only one or two minutes has passed between such screens? In my mind they do not prove he was a bad sport to refuse the draw.
The only thing, for me, that establishes bad sportsmanship in an objective way is a time delay. We moved last year from only recognizing no-progress draws to recognizing clear draws and the special situation with them warrants a shorter evidence period of 5 minutes. Although I will acknowledge that the single piece scenario should, and likely would in an MT vote on the matter anyway, be viewed as a clear draw, as Napoleon has suggested, I submit that the current requirement of 5 minutes for that situation is still the best rule to have. It's objective in ways no other test can be.
Sure we could go on number of moves. You've always wanted that one, tobermoryx. But I would not want to open the can of peas up on how many useless and wasted moves should be viewed as punishable. As additional evidence the number of moves is beneficial, I concur, but not as the main criteria.
That's my four cents on the deal.