Not play again to a player that has shown themself rude

Plenty of stingy rats here, sorry for the pigeonhole but...stingy rats afterall.

Would you do the same if the game were not rated? You are just begging for some imaginary points of an imaginary rating that does not tell your skills or knowledge of the game...that's why you are continuing lost games and not investing your time in learning.

I only play 5+3 (I don't have more time to invest and again I only play nowadays to turn my brain off from the computer. In past days I made a FM "norma" (sorry I don't know the word in English) before going to the Uni). In past days they taught you how to do B+N mate and you owned the tecnique, so you knew whether the guy knew how to do it. In past days it was considered really rude to continue these lost positions, even in a team match...

Somebody pointed out the difference if the game was somehow 1+0. Well, that's a good point. Here, speed skills are a thing and you have to prove them in every move. With 5+3 there is no point in continuing.

Will I drop pieces? Of course. That can happen. Does it make an excuse to continue such games? Well, if you want to make a living waiting for these statistical anomalies it's up to you. My example (K+R again K) was rellay clear in order to avoid any philosphy (and yet...stingy rats appear...) The time you are playing just in case the opponent's blunder happens means time not analyzing.

We used to analyse the games with your opponent in past days...We used to shake hands, have lunchs with the opponent team players...those were good days...I feel sort of proud of choosing chess instead of other sports. Doctors, lawyers, enginners, I could recall the adult members of my club and 90ish% of them were bright and plenty of common sense. I wish common sense and personal improvement are still features of this game...

May be I am wrong but my personal option is not wasting my time with stingy rats. Thanks for telling me how can I ban them. As a boomer I dont have the urge to know how things work in the website plattforms.

Kind regards, stingy rats. When you leave chess you can think of yourselves as brave warriors that never surrendered...that will be emotional...

If it's not forced win and he still playing you need annotate it
( at simul etc.)
If position clearly lost and still he playing he playing for stalemate or time
ıf he playing for fun you need block it

here good example never resgin
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f6? ( d6! , Nf6! ,a6! etc.) 4. Bxc6? ( d4!) dxc6
5. Nxe5?? fxe5 6. Qh5+ g6!!
it's quickest win really ( every move is strong
Qxe5 ( depth 38+ move)
Qe7
Qxh8 Nf6!!
( my opponent played Qxe4?? ( played in tournament two times)
engine move)
0-1 ( idea Kf7)
it's over ıf white have extra tempo ( not before Nf6)
maybe white can try equalize game ( example knight sac. )
Stockfish multi-threat second best move
(-2.5 best move
second best move -1.9 ( stockfish miss another strong move)

"Kind regards, stingy rats." You contradict yourself. Not only because such namecalling is by nature unkind, but because you are the only stingy person here (note I said person, not rat). Viz., the definition of stingy is "Unwilling to spend, give or use" e.g. money or time; "Ungenerous / selfish / refusing to share" e.g. one's time. And that is your own attitude, in a nutshell. Not mine, or that of anyone else here -- since we have all freely wasted our time trying to reason with you.

Most of the people on this site are still learning. (Presumably that includes you, since your own highest rating is about the same as my puzzle rating, and both are a long way from GM territory.) This isn't a small club; we don't attend lectures together, let alone have lunch afterwards. So naturally, many of your opponents will not have memorized the same endgames you claim to have. This doesn't mean they are "stingy." On the contrary, _they_ are willing to share their time with you. Why are you unwilling to extend them the same basic courtesy? (I gather you care more about lunch than chess.)

If your knowledge is so superior, why not teach them? The simplest way to do that would be to show them how it's done. If you are indeed winning, this should take little more of your time. And were you willing to spend another minute, you might also avail of the chatbox. This is, essentially, what we are doing here, in deigning to reply to you.

I could go on, but see no need. As one who would argue the opposite side in this matter, my work is done for me: in contradicting yourself so completely, you have shot yourself in the foot. And as we do but repeat ourselves now, I can see that talking to my bedroom wall would be equally productive going forward. Have a nice day. :)