A true chess Draw Death?

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, so I thought finally I would post it here (apologies if there are already similar topics touting similar ideas out there in the ginormous forum archives). 

What if 3-fold repetition were made illegal? In other words, what if, as an offensive tactic in an at least slightly advantageous position, after repeating a position twice the first player could play the same move a third time but the second player was not allowed to play the move that would result in a 3-fold, much like one cannot castle if her or his king is in check?

I hope I'm making sense. The completion of a 3-fold would simply be illegal, and the second player about to play move 3 after a 2-fold repeat had already been completed would be forced to make a (likely inferior) move on their third move. 

Of course, if that player had no legal moves other than to 3-peat, stalemate would be the only other possible result. In this case, I propose that the armageddon tiebreaker could be used in all tournament-level games from club to master (World Championship matches perhaps excluded, since determining a champion on an armageddon game could cheapen it). It doesn't take a whole lot of extra time, being armageddon, and I think it could add a whole lot of excitement. It'd be the equivalent of a sudden death overtime seen in many major league sports in North America. 

Three more things I should point out, in case of a forced or agreed upon draw as a result/alternative to there being no 3-fold repetition allowed:

1) Sofia rule or no in effect, all "agreed upon" draws, rather than conclude the game, would simply commence an armageddon tiebreaker.

2) I think it would be proper if the points scheme were modified in this case so that 3 points were given for a win in the original game, 2 for a win in armageddon, and 1 for a loss in armageddon.

3) As for whether the player with white in the original game should get white in the armageddon, the players should automatically switch sides, or someone like an arbiter should do a coin toss or some random form of lot draw and randomize who gets which side, I am not entirely sure, although I would lean toward the latter because the former could benefit a reputably drawish black player too favorably.

Maybe (hopefully) this is already in place (or something similar to it) at the league level of chess play. I know if I had a chess league I'd certainly use it, or at least try it out for a period of time to see whether or not it worked satisfactorily. 

One more thought: I think the armageddon tiebreaker could be especially exciting if the players happened to be on the same colors as in the original game (or not) and decided to quickly copy their original game in the armageddon with the suspense of "Who's going to deviate first?" or "Who might have found an improvement OTB in the original and is thus chomping at the bit to blitz it out in the tiebreaker?" added.

There, cat. You're out of the bag at last! So would it work out efficaciously or would it work only to further suppress ambition and creativity from the black side as many with black might play simply to hold to armageddon where anything can happen and they'd be guaranteed at least a point? 

OK! What do you think about making draws illegal? I've seen people suggest it. 

What if somebody forced to OP to play the black side of the Fool's Mate everytime he had the black pieces?! That would be a good draw-killer and more points for me and the others. Come on!

It's rare that you will comment on an article written by someone you know and have actually played chess OTB together ^^

A player can win lose or draw by taking half a point and that's chess. Not a zero sum game where one loses (-1) and one wins (+1). Draws are mostly by mutual agreement and here is a deeper look:

1. Perpetual check- yes, definitely derived from a tactical battle. I don't think anyone will disagree with this. One either concedes it, wins or forces it having to accept or be content with a draw as a result of the last move or two played. Probably had an exciting building up to the perpetual.
2. Stalemate - much like perpetual will usually get drawn by mutual agreement before actual stalemate is played out and this is also a result of tactical struggles - one strives to obtain a draw (get stalemated) and the other strives to do better (win) if they have the initiative or edge.
3. Insufficient material - seemingly 'sketchier' than the previous two but is no doubt a result of tactical struggles. When there is nothing better than being having to be content with a draw, one will be forced take the move continuation that will result in a draw by way of insufficient material. 
4. 50 move - Let us get this one of the way - If a player has not captured a piece or moved a pawn for 50 moves then the game is declared an automatic draw. The rule basically says "first one to blink or fall asleep loses" which is definitely not in spirit of chess and staying on theme of the analysis - this too 'is the result of a tactical struggle' but unlike previous others does not resolve and is in a sense a theoretical draw.
5. 3-fold repetition (3FR) - if the same exact position has been reached for the 3rd time with the same player to move and, which not need be reached in succession, a draw can be claimed by either player. 

• 3FR interrelates or extends from the other draws e.g. perpetual will force the 3FR after x number of checks, as will stalemate if the player annoyingly avoids making that final move, and the 50move rule (heaven forbid!) will result in a 3FR after some 3 x 64^64 moves... I'm no mathematician but you get the point, hopefully with a giggle. 
• Different, because 3FR can happen completely by surprise at any stage of the game just by an absence of mind that 3FR is a possibility when playing a game. 
• 3FR happens when there is no progression in game due to a tactical struggle. One will strive to avoid this scenario if they have an edge and one tries to enter this scenario if they feel they don't and a draw ensues from the tactical struggle which cannot resolve any further; a positional stalemate if you will.  

I'm thinking back to all those times I have felt happy with a draw or sad about it, but I suppose this is the razor sharp double edges of the game we love and draw's are part of the game of chess. Any suggestion to make it illegal is somewhat ridiculous. Variations on how draws can be scored was suggested by Healthy_Scratch but it gets too complicated and nearly impossible to implement. Is one draw better or worse, less or more exciting than another draw? perhaps, but how do we score that. Considerzugzwang or opposition motif's and tactics we employ when considering and making moves. If one was to avoid the 3FR because it was illegal then they would give up what they are hoping to do. If we at this point got rid of the 3FR would we need to rely on the 50move or mutual agreement?

3FR is related to other drawing rules of chess, like a precedent to all other draws that prevents playing on and on in a hopelessly stale/drawn position. It can hit you by surprise which makes it a sketchy rule and begs for improvement, but it has to be there as long as perpetual checks and stalemates and repeated oppositions or playing to force a zugzwang on an opponent is in effect, and those aren't going anywhere either. Perhaps make it a five-fold repetition so it doesn't come to the surprise to anyone like it has done many times before in huge matches.

I do agree Healthy_Scratch that more excitement could be injected into the game with finding some way to discourage draws but some draws can be quite exciting and I haven't seen or heard of any good ideas on finding a draw rule variant that is practically possible to implement.

Sorry. Tl: dr.

Sorry, yes it was too long. stripped it down. thanks for the comment