"Drawn" positions when there is an increment

[Stuart McKinney]

Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time  I'm playing in an increment tournament

Just my thoughts on an old thread: Imagine the same scenario with no increment. The position would be decided on time alone if one of the players refuses the draw. Again unsatisfactory.

I was playing a game on chess.com and we got down to a K & R v K & R so I offered a draw. The game had an increment so couldn't be decided on time. The draw offer was refused. I was annoyed and after a few moves I blundered and eventually lost which is beside the point. I've also watched games on chess.com where clearly drawn positions are played out only to win on time. Should players be allowed to claim draws in these positions. In my game should I have had an option to claim a draw rather then offer one?