Um...what? Victory is determined by victory points. If neither of you KO a fig, winner would be determined by a roll off.

That's not how the game rules work, but others have covered this.
As long as someone is doing whatever he is doing within a reasonable amount of time, then that person is not stalling.

If someone came to me at GenCon and said that player A was taking 5 minutes per turn for his five-man team (and those five minutes were being used in some productive manner), so player B was sitting there doing nothing with his one-man except elapsing 5 minutes from the clock, I'd give player B a warning or DQ for stalling.

Depending on the circumstances, taking 5 minutes for 5 guys might be reasonable.

Taking 5 minutes to do nothing but run out the clock is never reasonable and would be unquestionably stalling.

Note: I am taking a part of your full post for reference.

How would you determine what is a productive manner? (We can assume that player B is doing the same mannerisms as player A)

I would imagine measuring line of fire, checking dials, looking at cards powers, etc.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if a player's argument to me is "Well, he took 5 minutes, so I'm taking 5 minutes." that whatever he's doing is gonig to fall under the umbrella of "not productive" here.

You'd be amazed how passing a turn can drive people right off their strategy and into your clutches.

I agree with this statement. I feel it would be difficult to ascertain whether or not the player is purposely wasting time without insulting the player.

As an aside, I never point to the map or touch any figures unless I am making a move. If I read one character card I read every card on my force, and the same goes for my opponent. This reduces the amount of information I leak (which leads to longer turns)

I loled at both of those, though I'd consider passing over and over to be stalling, I can tell you I've been on the reverse side. The guy I was playing was moving stuff, but was taking 15 minute turns, to my 2 minute turns, and in the last 5 minutes he killed a 35pt piece, backed into elevation behind the blocking on it, waited more, and with about 30 seconds left he goes "Pass" and then the buzzer goes off. Not only was did he stall on me, he was a douche about winning, I told him I hopped he played against a team like his in the final round and got what was coming, the funny thing is, he did, he had to fight another Quasar/The-Captain (and some others) team that did to him what he did to me basically and when I found out I was filled with joy.
(this was week 2-3 of the Captain set)

Anyways, point is, stalling makes for a lack of fun at someone else's expense and it is never fun.

I was going to respond the same way. Taking "equal" time (for a 1 man team) just to run the clock does not seem fair, but is instead simply stalling.

If you play long enough, you can pretty much tell when one person is stalling, especially with a 1 figure team. You have one action. Its not that difficult.

There is nothing insulting about enforcing rules and keeping the game on task. That's what the judge is there to do, after all. If, in the judge's opinion, a player is stalling then that judge can call out that player with a warning or a DQ. No insult is meant; it is just the way the game works.

See, and if I saw you reading every single card on your opponent's force even though there was no real reason to do so (e.g. Both you and your opponent have Character X on your team and I just saw you read your own character's card a minute ago), I'd call that stalling. There is being careful and then there is being redundant to the point of ridiculousness.

Note: I used only part of your full response.

I would like to better understand how you could determine if there was no reason for me to read an opponent's card (besides the obvious).

In the GenCon sealed events, it is very typical for both players to reach each other's character cards every turn. With the inclusion of traits, I find myself more and more checking the wording on abilities and asking questions (which the other player does not have to answer).

I would like you to please explain your viewpoint further if it's not too much trouble.

A counter point to your view: - why should a person who brings more figures to a game be given more time than someone who brings less?

If you view the duration of the game as an equal value to be shared between players than your view holds less merit.

If you view the duration of the game to be use as needed, then your view makes a much stronger arguement.

If you check the cards a couple times when necessary, fine.

If you check every card, front to back, every turn of every game, yeah, that becomes a pattern of wasted time I will put the kibosh on *really* fast. If you want to know what Spider-Man's trait is, look at Spider-Man's card... yes, your opponent might realize you're planning on doing something to or with Spider-Man, but them's the breaks.

It is not that they are given more time. It is that the other guy, the one with less characters, doesn't need as much as the other guy. And, yes, there is a difference between the two.

If you really, honestly need 5 minutes to figure out if your lone Quasar is going to shoot or clear, you've probably already lost the game. Anything else and you are just running down to clock to gain an advantage, AKA stalling.