If you want to invent your own ratings system, go right ahead. Elo and Glicko simply don't work like that. They are only concerned with whether you win or lose, not how you get there.
There are other systems such as CAP on this site that do take that into account. But in general, they are way to cumbersome for employment in the read world (i.e. OTB).
As for the draw thing, no it doesn't annoy me. In fact, some chess coaches get quite annoyed when a student doesn't show enough of a fighting spirit. Even a "obvious" draw like wrong squared Bishop often has a multitude of ways for one side or the other to go wrong and lose. There is nothing wrong with someone making you prove you know how to actually play it.
Is anyone else annoyed that the potential ELO gain/loss is set prior to the game and doesn't take into account the circumstances of the game? It seems like I've had so many games where I had a substantial material advantage but lose by like 3 seconds on the clock, and yet I take the same ratings hit as if I had blundered my queen and been checkmated in 4 moves. It seems like it wouldn't be that hard to analyze the game with an engine and award or take away points that way.
A corollary point to this is that nobody I plays appears to ever want to take a draw, even if our positions and time are virtually identical. Sometimes it works out in my favor, sometimes it doesn't, but I find it super annoying. Is this some kind of unwritten rule, like never calling ticky-tack fouls in pickup basketball?