I just sent in another email to firstname.lastname@example.org that with all the requested information as I have not yet heard back.
Just to confirm that there were no appointments available at my local testing center, I called in. During the call we confirmed that there are no appointments available through July 31st 2021. What am I supposed to do here? I only took the OP because my local testing center canceled my in person. I do not think it is fair to have to travel 4+ hours (each way) to another testing site or pay for a flight when I provisionally passed with the highest integrity. A review of my exam performance would undoubtedly clear my name from this whole ordeal.
All - I was finally able to secure a spot at my local testing center. Today I provisionally passed the in person exam.
Although the online pilot was a truly awful experience, the in person exam was completely different. It was orders of magnitude easier, and all the questions were clearly written. It was nothing, NOTHING, like the online pilot exam.
I was so incredibly stressed out to take in person due to how seemingly impossible the online pilot exam was and was risking a 5 year ban upon failure. I was confident I had passed when the exam ended at 100 questions, and I felt I had applied what I had learned. ISC2 made the right call by no longer offering the online pilot. The in person CISSP is something that I can recommend, and will recommend, to those in the industry.
Glad to hear you had a better experience with your in-person exam, and very glad to hear you passed. Congrats!
You bring up one of the problems of the exam structure that I have always had an issue with and actually caused a friend of mine to fail the exam more than a dozen times before passing. That is the theory some test preparers have that the best way to test a person's knowledge of a subject is to ask tricky, "gotcha" questions. Done appropriately, this can result in new and interesting scenarios to apply your existing knowledge in novel ways. The most common application, however, is the use of linguistic "tricks" to make the tester give an incorrect answer because the sentence structure is not what the reader expects. These kinds of questions unfairly disadvantage those who do not speak the test's primary language as their primary language, in our case English, and those who did not receive proper instruction on the application of English language rules in school. To combat this, (ISC)² offers test takers the ability to register a different primary language and receive bonus points on the exam to somewhat make up for the disadvantage they face. However, this fails to address those who simply never learned to properly interpret incorrect grammar structures such as the double negative you give as an example. The result then is a test of your ability to interpret English "correctly" rather than a test of your knowledge of the domains. I say "correctly" because we would not be using grammatically-incorrect structures to properly test English interpretation skills.
To be fair, much of our industry revolves around the proper interpretation of rules, laws, and regulations, and this is a skill that should be tested. However, in my opinion, this should be directly tested in essay form and indirectly hinted at through English "trick".
My best advise to you? Use that frustration and volunteer to help make test questions. If all of us who are frustrated by these aspects of the test come together and volunteer our time, we can change the test for the better and make an exam that can improve the profession.