System Does Matter.
Ya, even if the rest is bunk I think that that a very important point that a lot of people forget.

Oh, and Bosh, if I were working in a strictly GNS framework, I'd define your tentative "Acquistionist" category as Gamist focusing on beating the system rather than any specific challenges. Does that sound about right?
Hmmm, maybe. But I think that there's a big difference between someone who is really really looking forward to getting new abilities for their character and looking forward to him kicking ass in the future to someone who is looking for a more intellectual tactical exercise. Maybe its because I'm a good bit of a Gamist myself but I can't stand the MMORPG-style grind that's all based on acquiring new stuff.

The idea behind it was to identify the priorities people use to make specific in-game decisions - GM calls, if you will.
Ya, that's exactly what I was saying just in a much more concise matter. This difference is VERY important.

"believable" (which is not the same as being "realistic").
You're right, that's a better term.

Fairness is absolutely necessary, because without it, there is no contest.
Right. Fairness is most important for the Gamists but I think its very vital for a Narratavist game. If the rules are unfair then if people do things/create characters based on narratavist concerns rather than gamist concerns then you can end up with a badly gimped character and having a character who can't accomplish anything can really mess up the mood for even the most dedicated narratavist player.

According to Winterwind's classifications I think I'm a bit of a hybrid Gamist/Character Player since I like characters with very strong personalities who do a lot of things that are irrational from a game perspective but I do a lot of Gamist type stuff to keep these characters from being gimpy from a gamist perspective. Basically I'm sort of a gamist who handicaps himself by being a character player, if that makes any sense...

As a DM I lean more Simulationy, since I'm a big history geek and I like playing games rooted in real history since I'm a crappy story teller :)

(and the thinly veiled suggestion that Narrativist = Good and anything else is bad).
Right, I think that's a problem and that GNS works better if you yank out those value judgements. D&D annoys me a lot not because its a gamist game but because its not always a very good gamist game (due to balance problems).

WoD is marketted to "Storytelllers" and puts a great deal of emphasis on character development, mood, themes, and narrative structures.
And in my experience at least doesn't do the best job of this in practice...

If somebody says "I am a Narrativist" they might mean "I value the exploration of my character" or they might mean "I value the exploration of theme" or they might mean "I think RPGs should be cool and exciting like an action movie" or they might mean "I think that players should shut up and follow the GM's plot" or they might mean "I think the GM should keep the hell out of the players' plots".
In game mechanics terms Narrativist should mean IMHO that there is some mechanical mechanism that allows results to happen that further the story/theme/whatever that is built into the system. A good example of this would be Fate aspects.

Hmmm there's also a few types of gamers that don't really fit in GNS:
-The "hey look at me!" gamer.
-The social/joker gamer (he of the constant puns).
-The quiet gamer who seems more of an audience than a participant.