arrow_circle_left arrow_circle_up arrow_circle_right
King AVMA the III
help
Finally inheriting the title after 70 years.
arrow_circle_up
Raak] No, but there may sometimes be a connection.
Rosie] No.
Less is more?
R] Close enough! The AOTC is “parsimony”, but I decided early on I’d accept anything in the ballpark of synonymy. Have a very small baton.
Th nxt s ... er, the next is ANIMAL with ABSTRACT connections.
Mythical creature?
Fictional?
Is it a chordate?
Is it a hedgehog that thinks it's the King?
[bl] Not a mythical creature.
[B] Not fictional.
[SM] The animals that could be involved are all chordates.
[T] Not a hedgehog that thinks it's the King. Neither, for that matter, it is an elephant that thinks it's President Putin, nor a platypus that thinks it's Napoleon.
Are these chordates extinct?
[RtG] Not extinct.
Human?
Do they have a readily defined habitat?
[Tuj] Human.
[SM] Given the previous answer, yes — this planet.
Unique?
[CdM] Not unique.
Does the abstract connection define a group of individuals?
[CdM] Not a group.
One particular human?
Does the AOTC include any Crescenters?
[bl] No particular human.
[T] The AOTC includes pretty much all humans.
Is the AOTC defined by who it excludes rather than includes?
Is this a human characteristic?
[T] That could be considered a political matter these days.
[R] Yes, that's a reasonable description. The few who do not have it might kick up a storm about the AOTC being ableist, hence previous answer.
Is the AOTC linked to one of the senses?
[CdM] The thing itself is linked to one of the senses, but that link plays no part in the AOTC.
A person with two legs?
[R] Legs not involved.
Is the AOTC a single word (articles aside)?
[T] Not a single word.

I think the ABSTRACT connection has been neglected.

Is the abstract connection something that philosophers have a particular interest in?
[CdM] Not philosophical.
Is the abstract connection health-related?
[CdM] Not health-related.
Are you aware of any Crescenters who *aren't* part of the AOTC?
[Tuj] No-one is literally part of the AOTC. Audience murmurs in amused suspense.
The chair would like to remind the panel that the ANIMAL category need not mean that the answer is an animal, or a set of animals.
Is the AOTC a set of parts of (human) animals?
[CdM] (The audience is relieved of their suspense.) The AOTC is a part of an animal.
Uniquely human?
(I think we need to clarify this)
[CdM] The ANIMAL aspect, no. The ABSTRACT connection, yes.
Is the abstract connection a metaphor?
[Everyone] Feel free to join in. :)
(Applause from the handful of people still in the room.) [CdM] It is a metaphor.
Too many cooks?
Does it involve one or more organs?
[SM] Not too many cooks.
[Tuj] It does involve one or more organs.
A brick shit-house?
Is the AOTC election-related?
[R] Not a brick shit-house.
[CdM] Not election-related.
Something to do with ears?
[Tuj] Not ears.
Are the organs in question internal?
(The audience is alert to see how the chair handles this tricky question.) [CdM] Yes.
Something to do with tongues?
[Tuj] (applause) It is to do with tongues.
Tongue in cheek?
[CdM] Not tongue in cheek.
Bilingualism?
Dwyieithrwydd for those not blessed with this facility.
Holding your tongue?
Sorry for not participating, the cat had got my tongue. Is that it?
Circling in for the kill...
[CdM] Not holding your tongue.
[B] The cat does not have hold of it.
Is the answer on the tip of my tongue?
Parler en langues?
[B] No, because...
[CdM] Yes, "the tip of the tongue" is the AOTC. Have this, er, whatchamacallit, thing sort of thing.
OK. Next we have a MINERAL with an ABSTRACT connection
Water?
A pearl of great price?
Water? No. (Not sure what the abstract connection would be there)
Pricey pearl? No.
Is it a song?
Song? No. Not even the abstract connection.
Man-made?
A gemstone mineral?
Human-made? No.
Gemstone? No.
Is it a gas?
Gas? No.
Does the Abstract connection have to do with a work of fiction?
Abstract connection to work of fiction? Yes. *applause*
Is the abstract connection a direction?
One Direction? No.
The Philosopher's Stone?
Philosopher’s stone? No.
A ring?
Is the fiction it's connected to sci-fi?
I'm totally thinking of the beryllium spheres from Galaxy Quest
Is it valuable?
A ring? No.
Sci-fi? No.
Valuable? Yes is probably the best answer, but I’ll warn you that it may be misleading.
Is it unique?
Unique? Yes.
Does it exist now?
Currently existing? Yes.
Is it in a fixed location?
Is it a monument?
Fixed location? Yes.
Monument? No.
Is it in a museum?
Is the abstract link to mythology?
In a museum? No.
Mythology? No.

As I'm feeling generous, here are a few hints.
1. You'll probably need to come at this from both angles. That is, you need to identify what kind of thing the MINERAL thing is, and you will also need to figure out the ABSTRACT connection.
2. Most, probably all, of you won't actually know the specific wording of the AOTC. But an equivalent identifying phrase is acceptable (and, once you've figured that out, the AOTC would be a quick google away).
3. Despite (2), most, probably all, of you know the ABSTRACT connection and most—though probably not all— have in some sense encountered the MINERAL AOTC.
Is it a statue?
Statue? No.
Is it in the human body?
In human body? No. (Unique, remember)
Is it made of stone?
Is it a religious item?
Made of stone? Yes (though that’s perhaps an odd way to put it, given you’ve established that it’s not human-made).
Religious? No.
A cairn?
Cairn? No.
Is it smaller than a double-decker bus?
Is it on Earth?
A geographical feature?
… and the audience awakens …
Smaller than double-decker bus? No.
On Earth? Yes.
Geographical feature? Yes.
There are lots of geographical features associated with fiction, spanning the spectrum from Rockall to the Marianas trench. Does it span more than one country?
Of cultural significance to a particular nation or group of people?
> 1 country? No.
Cultural significance? Yes.
Of cultural significance to a particular nation or group of people?
Cockup - forget that
Uluru?
Uluru? No. For free, I'll tell you that the cultural significance is probably not going to be particularly helpful to you.
Is it on a coast?
Is the work of fiction that forms the abstract connection less than 150 years old?
In Britain?
Coastal? No.
Fictional work post 1874? Yes.
In Britain? No.
It is highest part above 5000 feet?
> 2500 pairs of feet? Yes.
Mount Everest?
Mount Everest? No.
A named mountain?
Named mountain? Yes.
Is it in Australia?
Mount Ararat?
In Australia? No.
Mount Ararat? No.
In the Alps?
In the Alps? No.

This might be a good point to suggest you re-read my earlier hints. I suppose you could eventually get to the answer via geographic elimination, but that will be boring and might take a while. You won’t get there by guessing the names of mountains that you know; I doubt if any of you know this mountain by name. So I’d suggest following the abstract connection, which I promise you is not obscure.
Is it a feature of a mountain such as the side, a cave on it, or that bit that fell off the one in Alaska
arrow_circle_down
Want to play? Online Crescenteering lives on at Discord