Chess.com doesn't know what "insufficient mating material" means

A few times now I've won games on time and been awarded draws, in situations like this game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/47689231337

In this game my opponent (apparently a National Master) couldn't figure out a winning endgame due to time trouble so for personal reasons I decided to flag him as is my prerogative. Apparently this is a draw because I have 'insufficient mating material' as per the rule: https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw

However, a bishop against a knight is SUFFICIENT material to mate my opponent:

The debate has been held a number of times.

Most people accept the idea that requiring the ability to force mate without help is  a reasonable standard.

I don't see why most people would accept that, but if that is the case the rules need to be adjusted to reflect that, it needs to say something like "You must have material which can be used to force mate" because the current rule is a nonsense.

However, where do you draw the line with being able to force mate without help? NB vs B? NB vs N? BB vs NN? As it stands there isn't even a defined rule for this. On other chess websites they simply follow the rule that they lay out "sufficient mating material" means just that, whereas on chess.com they say "sufficient mating material" but they actually mean some other nonsense?

It's a joke. The reason they haven't written a rule which reflects what the system actually does is because they can't because such a rule would look really stupid when set out in prose.

https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

This attempts to explain the rules here.

Laws of Chess:
"6.9      
Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player.
However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves."
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 
This is incorrectly implemented on this site.
Best is to play with increment, then you can avoid such situations.

And another article:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-chess-games-can-end-8-ways-explained

If this were a FIDE owned site, and people were playing classic time controls, that might be correct to say.

But it isn't and they aren't.

And chess.com needed to have a set of rules that computers could follow.

And they couldn't afford the time or effort to lay out every possible permutation.

And there was no army of on-call arbiters available 24/7.

And so they made some decisions about "insufficient material" that satisfied most rational players.

I'm sorry.

Are you saying that about the original position laid out by the OP, where his opponent timed out and the OP only had a bishop and king against a rook, knight and king? :

Remember that until move 70 I had a pawn on h7 which my opponent tried to sacrifice his rook for (I knew that if I took the rook the game would end automatically and I didn't want there to be any ambiguity to the fact that I flagged my opponent even though B vs N is also sufficient mating material regardless of the rook).

SO, if he flagged before he took the pawn the argument is that I could have queened the pawn and checkmated my opponent and therefore I would have been awarded the win... but in what universe does my opponent allow me to queen that pawn? It's just as implausible that my opponent lets me queen the pawn and checkmate him as the B vs RN mate which I showed above.

This is the crux of the debate right here. With the pawn I'd get a win, without it I get a draw, even though in both cases I objectively have sufficient mating material and just as much chance of practically winning the game. However, the clock is paramount. Why bother having a time control at all if the clock is not paramount?

Let's just call this what it is: laziness. You say chess.com "can't figure out the computations required to properly implement the rule as defined by both chess.com and FIDE" well other chess websites have figured it out and I happen to know that one of these sites uses open source so chess.com could just steal their solution?

Chess.com, either state what rule you're enforcing or implement the rule you claim to be enforcing correctly, there's no excuse for this.

The site decided to implement a rule that is more in line with the US Chess rules on insufficient material to win on time and not the FIDE implementation where helpmates are allowed. 

In my opinion, the US Chess rules make more sense anyway and since the site hasn't changed the algorithm much since it's was implemented, they apparently agree.

I just showed why they don't make sense and no it's not a matter of opinion.

But since you think it is I'll ask you: to what extent does the US Rule make sense? In a theoretical draw where white has a pawn blockaded by opposition White gets the win if Black flags: this is a "helpmate" as you say. As much of a "helpmate" as B vs N or any number of endgames.

BN vs R, helpmate. BN vs B, helpmate. BB vs R, helpmate. Q vs NNBB, helpmate. More than that most of these are "helpmates" for whichever side flags.

It doesn't make any sense and the rule is not delivered as described. I don't care how much anyone thinks it makes sense; they're objectively wrong. The USCF should consider adjusting their rules too, but one problem at a time.

FIDE rules would support you. The ECF unfortunately now follows FIDE rules. In this matter, Chess.com rules reflect the old, common sense approach and not the pedantic, nit-picking FIDE rules. Imo we would be better off without FIDE.

It's a game, which is an hypothetical and artificial construct. There is no "objectively" .... it's all subjective opinion. 

Yes who needs to take a pedantic, nit-picking, "objectively correct" approach to Rules when instead you could take a haphazard, flawed, common sense, "nonsensical" approach to Rules...

The old thinking was that helpmates are not in the proper spirit of chess. I think that. It's my opinion and your opinion is different. Neither can be objective because there's nothing to measure our opinions by, except other opinions. There are no facts in an artificially constructed game.

In a real situation, say in a classical controls, five hour game, it could conceivably come down to a time rush when each was trying to flag the other, when one had a knight and the other a bishop. One would hope that the players would be more mature than the arbiters in such a situation. After all, the players themselves could overthrow the stupid rules if they wished, by agreeing to always agree draws in such situations. I suspect that will happen and FIDE will lose its power.

As I just explained the very concept of a "helpmate" is ridiculous BUT chess.com can enforce whatever stupid rules they like. As I said:

"Either state what rule you're enforcing or implement the rule you claim to be enforcing correctly."

If they want to enforce a rule it should be written and explained for all to see. As it stands, "sufficient mating material" is not an opinion, it's a provable assertion, and I have proven that B vs N or indeed B vs NRQetc. is sufficient to mate.

Have whatever opinion makes you happy, it won't change the facts.

The only facts concerning this are different opinions and that's the only fact that is unassailable.

You could give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that the explanation is ambiguous. When talking about "mated" in this context, forced mates are what is meant. Because it's something that you're doing to someone else, but not regarding help-mates. So your facts are someone else's folly in both directions. Anyhow, nice meeting you.