The Great Duck posted the following question after nearly a week in the Sandbox:
It was closed very quckly as "unclear what you're asking." Considering the number of upticks, it seems most of those votes were following a comment by RonJohn which reads:
However, there are still two serious problems. #1 easily fixed: The title ("constructing a simulated universe to start a war?") doesn't match the body ("a single world-war simulation"). #2 Maybe because I've been a computer programmer for so long, and lived through the Cold War, but the question "what quality-analysis tests would justify using a single world-war simulation?" has such a blindingly obvious answer (your nation-state wants to determine if it would win a WW) that he must be asking something else. Thus, still Unclear What You're Asking.
I corrected the title mismatch (an oversight), but people are following what appears to be an error on RonJohn's part.
but the question "what quality-analysis tests would justify using a single world-war simulation?" has such a blindingly obvious answer (your nation-state wants to determine if it would win a WW) that he must be asking something else.
"Your nation-state wants to determine if it would win a WW" is NOT a "blindingly obvious answer" to the question "what quality-analysis tests would justify using a single world-war simulation?"
It would be a blindingly obvious answer to "why would you write this software in the first place?"
At the time of this posting, RonJohn's comment had 4 upticks, suggesting at least four other people don't understand what RonJohn said and why it's in error.
People are voting to close this question as unclear because they don't have enough experience in the field to comprehend the question. It's analogous to a teenager casting a vote to close a question about celestial mechanics because the teen doesn't understand celestial mechanics. That doesn't reflect a weakness in the question, but a weakness in the user voting to close the question.
There is one fault that's mine
The original question in the sandbox was very lengthy and included a lot of information not germaine to the question, but in my robust house cleaning I threw out one piece of information that likely helps.
- Great Duck's story is being told from the perspective of the simulated AI. In other words, The AI's world is influenced by the reason the developers chose to use a world-spanning war to test the software.
However, that doesn't actually change the question, it only rationalizes why it's a worldbuilding question in the first place (the "world" is the AI's world).
Invitation
Therefore, I would like to invite WB participants to reopen the question. If you feel strongly that the question should not be reopened, please give a clear description as to why it should not be reopened.
Please note that before closure two answers were posted by people who understand what software testing is.