arrow_circle_left arrow_circle_up arrow_circle_right
King AVMA the III
help
Finally inheriting the title after 70 years.
arrow_circle_up
Is it art?
Is it a building?
It is a mechanical device.
It is unique.
It has a certain charm, but it is not classed as Art.
It is not a building, though it was built.
Is its purpose entertainment?
Is it located in the United Kingdom?
Built for transportation purposes?
Regarded as old-fashioned?
Is it a train?
Its purpose is not entertainment.
It is located in the UK.
It was built for transportation purposes.
I'm not sure if it's regarded as old-fashioned.
It's not a train.
Is it a bridge?
A road?
It is a bridge.
It is an A-road.
The Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale?
Is it in London?
It is not the Iron Bridge in Coalbrookdale.
It is not in London.
Does it cross the river Forth?
Is it on the A5?
Does the bridge’s name supply the vegetable connotation?
The Prince of Wales (M4) Bridge?
The Menai Bridge (projected to be kept from rust by boiling it in wine)
It does not cross the river Forth.
It is not on the A5.
The name does supply a vegetable connotation. But it's such a punnish and abstruse one, that to be honest I can't recommend this line of investigation.
It is not the Prince of Wales' bridge on the M4.
It is not the Menai bridge.
If you don't want a hint, read no further.
Hidden textRemember that this is a mechanical device.
Does it reconfigure such that sometimes it may be crossed and sometimes not?
Is it a suspension bridge?
It is not a suspension bridge. Reconfiguration has me stumped. I think the best answer is No, but only because the standard functioning configuration defines its usage under all circumstances. But Yes might also be possible.
The Tees Transporter Bridge?
Winner
Right answer! A nice piece of engineering not far from me. Also an example of "The A-Road, Interrupted". Sadly it's out of service at the moment and could well never get back into operation.
So congrats to Tuj, to whom the baton is being delivered via a gondola.
My frustration at never having heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge is amply compensated by having now heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge.
[Raak] I love that feeling. I wonder if anyone's ever coined a name for it?
Anyway, it's ABSTRACT time.
Is it the feeling of never having heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge then being amply compensated by having now heard of the Tees Transporter Bridge?
Just a stab in the dark...
Is it linked to an astronomical object outside our planet?
Hidden textRaak - I don't know the name of that feeling. But surely it is the one on which Trivial Pursuit is based.
Now, I know I might frustrate...
[SM] NO. If I'd set that and there wasn't a guess straight away, that could have taken years!
[RTG] NO. Although, to be strictly honest, YES it can be linked.
Hidden textThat feeling seems to me like something that might have been named by Liff, but it's possible my thoughts are being influenced by my main source of the feeling being my job QCing British geographic data!
Does it involve the sense of vision?
Is it a human construct that either does or does not begin with P?
...so fiddly...
[R] NO. Well, no more than your average abstract does. Or maybe slightly more. I need to ask a blind person!
[CdM] NO. I *think* this one is inarguable!
Is it an -ology?
...ology...
[C] NO.
Was it the subject of philosophical debate?
A dream?
...the clues continue...
[B] NO appears to be the answer from what I can find, though it probably has been somewhere somewhen.
[R] NO.
This should also be inarguable
If you were standing in front of Raak and Chalky, one of whom always tells the truth and the other of whom always lies, and both know the AOTC, and all of you know the foregoing but you do not know which one is the truth teller, and you were to ask Raak "if you asked Chalky if the AOTC begins with the letter P, is it the case that she wouldn't not say 'No'?", is it the case that he wouldn't not say yes?
...logically...
[CdM] YES. (I hope I've figured that out correctly!)
Are you, Tuj, telling the truth?
I'm ready to make a guess. Is it 'making things harder than they need to be'?
...dreckly...
[C] YES. Unless I've made a mistake! Are you? :P
Hidden textIf I had chosen the AOTC to be something related to lying all the time, and gave the opposite answer to every question... that would have been very brave indeed!

[SM] NO!
Hidden textHonestly, NO!
Is ot associated with a country?
Is it a text?
...stateless and of low verbiage...
[B] NO.
[R] NO. (an audience member starts saying "Well..." and is shushed)
Is it an emotion?
Is it artistic?
...feel artful, no...
[B] NO.
[R] NO.
Is it something that humans experience?
...'swrong word...
[R] NO. You can be aware of it, I can't describe it as something that can be experienced.
Is it an adage?
An abbreviation?
...not not valuable...
[C] NO.
[RTG] NO, the AOTC is not an abbreviation. But in one sense, the answer to this is ALWAYS.
A standard?
...not so defined...
[B] NO — but the audience break out into a hearty applause. That word doesn't *quite* fit the AOTC.
A superstition?
A custom?
...disagreed...
[SM] NO.
[R] NO.
Would a dog be aware of it?
...doggy 0...
[CdM] NO. But who can really know the mind of dog?
Is a particular individual credited with its discovery?
Is it behavioural?
...no...
[CdM] NO. (Or if there was they're long lost to history)
[RTG] NO.
'Twas ever thus?
Is it a length?
...enduring...
[C] Interpreting that as asking whether this thing has always existed: YES.
[B] NO. But the audience, who applauded the previous question, make appreciative noises.
Is it a time?
Is it the same on every spot on the surface of the earth?
Periodicity?
Have philosophers written about this?
...timeless...
[B] NO.
[C1] YES is the useful answer. A strict and slightly tedious reading of your question could yield the answer NO.
[C2] NO. (but good to know I got your logic question correct!)
[R] YES, it seems, but probably not significantly for a very long time.
Revelation?
Would the man on the Clapham omnibus have heard of this?
...commuter...
[Ro] NO.
[Ra] YES is my contention, though I'm not optimally placed to judge.
Is the AOTC a single word?
[Tuj] Don’t rule out the possibility that we both got it wrong.
It is related to religion?
Is it a force?
...a singleton, godless...
[CdM] YES. I trust you far more than that!
[R] NO.
[B] NO.
Is it studied by scientists?
...a surety...
[CdM] While the answer might arguably be YES, I think it's more useful to say NO (because they know it darn well already).
Is it mathematical?
...deafening...
[R] YES. The crowd goes wild!
π?
...it's completed...
[CdM] YES! This circular, two-dimensional baton is now yours.
ABSTRACT
e?
Unknowing?
Knowledge?
R] N
B] N
R] N
I can type whatever I want here now!
Was it mentioned in the previous round?
T] N
Does it have to do with art?
R] N
Is there a book about it?
R] N? / Y mybe?
(CdM) Why are you writing in Welsh? I thought that was my privilege.
To do with science?
R] :)
R] N
minimalism?
S] N *a*
The void?
Initials?
Abbreviations?
R] N
T] N
B] N *s a*
Are you performing the answer?
Prosigns ?
R] Y
B] N
Anything to do with Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions?
B] N!
Data compression?
Related to a specific means of communication?
txtspk?
Shorthand?
R] N *a*
T] N gq!!
S] N *a*
R] N *a*
telegrammese?
R] N
(Hnt: Thnk mr gnrl/abstrct)
Initials?
An emotion?
Minimalism?
Is the AOTC case-sensitive? :-)
Something to do with the grammar or construction of language?
B] N
R] N
R] N
s] n
g] N

This AVMA seemed like an interesting idea when I thought of it, but in hindsight probably was a mistake. :) And my commitment to exemplifying the AOTC with my answers has left me unable to communicate any nuance in my responses. You are all being too specific; the AOTC is a general (and very simple concept) that is a feature of many of the guesses you have collectively made.
Simplicity?
R] N *substantial applause*
Elegance ("the beauty of simplicity")?
Symmetry?
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