From: darth router (darklordrouter@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 10 2007 - 13:22:43 ART
Scott really gave himself away with the 20 sided dice thing. :P
DR
:)
On 10/10/07, Paul Dardinski <pauld@marshallcomm.com> wrote:
>
> To be honest, the entire thing really doesn't make sense. A piece of
> paper with an acl on it? Ur telling me someone actually snuck in an acl
> and couldn't memorize it assuming somehow they were cheating?
>
> No, there is more to the story either way. I wouldn't imagine Cisco
> would arbitrarily just go off and permanently remove someone unless it
> was justified. I would assume there is some kind of appeals process, but
> again, I'd guess there is just more to this story then we are being
> told.
>
> PD (#16842)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Scott Morris
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:23 AM
> To: 'Darby Weaver'; cisco@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: OT Re: !!!! Banned by Cisco !!!! [7:126999]
>
> There are always options, not necessarily appeals. Like you point out,
> Cisco is not a government entity, and we are not required to have any
> particular rights. We are making one of several choices to voluntarily
> participate in this program as well as signing the NDA as well as
> agreeing
> to the terms and conditions set out in the program.
>
> Just like any problem that cannot be solved at the lowest level, if one
> feels something is wrong in their case (not a Ralph Nader-type approach
> for
> consumer rights), then go up the food chain. Everyone has bosses. Now,
> I
> would not recommend sending John Chambers an e-mail, but if this person
> has
> done wrong and has a relationship with a local Cisco SE, I'm sure they
> can
> figure out someone in the food chain who would be appropriate to strike
> up a
> conversation with at a professional level.
>
> On the other hand, especially being in the USA, I'm sure you've seen the
> TV
> show COPS. If you try to handle yourself unprofessionally, don't expect
> a
> professional response. But either way, it's not OUR place. The rules
> are
> set out pretty clear, that's all that Cisco is required to disclose to
> us.
> We know them, don't violate them and there won't be a problem.
>
> Would it make you feel better if someone from Cisco came out and said
> that
> there was no appeals process, that they actually used a 20-sided dice to
> figure out someone's fate? What would you do then? While it may seem
> amusing (at least if you haven't broken any rules), the idea of our
> being
> involved in the process is still the same. We are not.
>
> Sure, we can speak our minds if we want, but this is not a democratic
> process. When policies change, we have to deal with those as well. A
> couple of years ago when they changed the recertification process, I
> actually got screwed out of three years of recert. But there wasn't
> much to
> do about it. I suppose I could have decided to forego the entire
> program in
> protest, but other than people looking at me funny, what would it have
> accomplished?
>
> If you have political rights, by all means exercise them. But that's
> government. This is business. Short of Cisco violating some rule of
> law
> (and no, due process is not guaranteed in instances like these) there's
> not
> much to do. A civil lawsuit can always be filed, but I can imagine
> that's
> really not the best way to win friends and influence people. :)
>
> Somehow I'm thinking the "all for one and one for all" mentality will
> watch
> you chasing things on your on Don Quixote. (and yes, I know those are
> two
> completely different stories)
>
> For your movie analogy, are you talking about "V for Vendetta" or the
> "V" in
> which people eat rats?
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darby Weaver [mailto:darbyweaver@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: smorris@ipexpert.com; cisco@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: OT Re: !!!! Banned by Cisco !!!! [7:126999]
>
> The real question is if anyone of us stands accused, what rights, if
> any, do
> we have as customers.
>
> If the guy is guilty, then so be it, don't do the crime if you can't do
> the
> time.
>
> However, if a person is innocent, then what?
>
> Quietly get dragged to the gallows... to be summarily charged and
> swiftly
> executed, never to be heard from again.
>
> Reminds me of a scene in the movie "V".
>
> As long as one person is denied, we are all denied, one and all.
>
> Now if we have no rights, or rights to any review of any sort, that's
> fine.
>
>
> Let's just be clear about it, up front, and open.
>
> No harm in that.
>
> If an appeal is not for us to know about, exactly who else should know
> about
> it?
>
> We are the a large community of Cisco CCIE people and we are directly
> affected by any policy or lack theereof, that the Cisco CCIE program may
> wish, at their sole discretion, afford us.
>
> From the way the letter reads, I get the feeling the appeals are over
> and so
> was the process. There are reasons why the "note" was not disclosed for
> obvious reasons. The program lives and dies by the NDA. No argument.
>
> However, if a person stands accused, at least in my country, the USA, a
> person is usually allowed to face his accuser.
>
> Now Cisco is not a country and is a private entity,, no doubt about it,
> Cisco is not bound by this.
>
> But again what can a person who believes himself/herself innocent and
> free
> from all doubt do?
>
> You mentioned there are always appeals...
>
> Exactly, what are they?
>
> I, for one, have never seen such a process published.
> Now, to be fair, Cisco may not have one, want one, or perceive the need
> to
> ever have one. Fine.
>
> Let's just clear the air and say it as such, one way or the other.
>
> This forum is just a means of communications and this ia a very
> important
> matter - you should see the number of relative posts and this little
> issue
> has created.
>
> I believe the CCIE Community does care and if there is a process, then
> they
> aka "us" would probably like to know it.
>
> There are step-by-step processes on how to open an email on the
> Internet...
>
>
> Why not how to appeal a process, that stands to risk a lot of our
> hard-earned money, time, and reputation is even remotely falsely
> accused.
>
>
> So, is there a process?
>
> 1. Yes
> 2. No
>
> If so, what is it? If not, then as long as it is stated and understood
> to
> be so, and we are all clear on the matter. Great.
>
> However, I would have thought there was no process.
> But now I am inclined to beleive their may be one.
>
> What is it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Scott Morris <smorris@ipexpert.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the point Chris is making is that it seems to be something
> > between Hitesh and Cisco. If you fight hard enough, there are always
> > appeals processes, but that is something that's up to him to pursue
> > and not for us to debate.
> >
> > We can all get fired up about it and decide how unfair life is, and
> > perhaps after reading the thread below decide that Hitesh is being
> > wronged by someone lying and has no recourse, but the bottom line is
> > that other than the e-mail presented to us we have absolutely no idea
> > what did or did not happen there.
> >
> > While I think it is great that Cisco takes all these things very
> > seriously, and has some fairly serious repercussions for those who
> > violate the rules of conduct (that we all sign in agreement to), I
> > also know that they take their investigations fairly seriously and are
>
> > not just going to jump in with that harsh of a punishment if it were
> > not warranted.
> >
> > While Cisco cares about what we think, it is not their policy to
> > involve the general public in an internal security matter. We do not
> > get to be a jury of Hitesh's peers. If he wants that sort of
> > consideration, then there are always civil legal remedies which he
> > could pursue.
> >
> > Why should we be asking how arbitrary the process is? It's kinda like
>
> > asking how arbitary the grading process is. Did the proctor not like
> > the way my hair was combed that day, or did I not smile enough or say
> > "Good Morning" fast enough?
> >
> > If we all spend time worrying about things that:
> >
> > 1. We can't possibly know or assume anyway 2. We can't possibly
> > control either 3. We can't know whether it's simply our cosmic karma
> > instead of Cisco's policy anyway
> >
> > Then we're just going to get stressed out for no particular reason.
> > Concentrate on the studying, take the test, be professional, and life
> > will be good. If anyone here individually becomes involved with
> > something like outlined below, THEN they obviously have a right to be
> > upset/concerned/whatever and then they will truly know the facts
> > involved with it. Until then, we are all simply bystanders in the
> > game and seeing one (potentially jilted) side of the story.
> >
> > I've been around the CCIE program, and know many of the people
> > involved, and I can assure you that I have no reason to believe there
> > is any arbitrary treatment of situations like this occurring.
> >
> > Just my thoughts...
> >
> >
> > Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service
> > Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M
> > #153, CISSP, et al.
> > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
> > VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
> > IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> >
> > A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
> >
> > smorris@ipexpert.com
> >
> > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> > Fax: +1.810.454.0130
> > http://www.ipexpert.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Darby Weaver
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:02 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com; cisco@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: OT: Re: !!!! Banned by Cisco !!!!
> > [7:126999]
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Contrar my friend. I have seen personally that the CCIE Developement
> > team does watch these this forum with interest and with intent.
> >
> > They do care about the program.
> >
> > They do care about what we think - we are something like a customer...
>
> > old fashioned concept.
> >
> >
> > Now from what I have read thus far, our friend was apparently
> > confronted about this incident in the lab.
> > As was at least one other person. So the proctor had his reasons no
> > doubt for thinking as he did.
> >
> > This is very serious and could affect the way we enter the lab exam in
>
> > the future.
> >
> > Apparently a "note" or "notes" were found and those notes were "not on
>
> > the paper given by the proctors".
> >
> > Now if our friend here is innocent and did not bring notes to the lab,
>
> > that is one thing.
> >
> > If he he did, then it is another.
> >
> > The problem is what can a person do if he/she did not bring notes but
> > were accused of doing so?
> >
> >
> > There really is very little recourse.
> >
> > However, we as CCIE candidates want to believe in the integrity of the
>
> > program as a whole and in our proctors.
> >
> > I, for one, have always found the proctors to be very professional and
>
> > very helpful.
> >
> > This person is concerned about his career and should be, since this is
>
> > a serious offense.
> >
> > Cisco is concerned about the integrity of the entire CCIE program, as
> > we all should be.
> >
> > From the treads I've read up to know, and I've seen the email chain,
> > the Cisco Security Team probably have a strong case and it seems they
> > took a little while to properly weigh the options.
> >
> > Banning someone for life and stripping all certs is pretty serious.
> >
> > The question we all should be asking is "how arbitrary is the
> > process"?
> >
> > Even if a student is expelled for cheating from a College Campus, they
>
> > still have some rights.
> >
> > Cisco makes their case clear - break the rules and you are banned for
> > life - per the lastest CCIE update.
> >
> > It is their program, but it is also ours. We all have significant
> > investments in time and money too.
> >
> > The vendors here have incredible amounts invested.
> >
> > Everyone who takes the time and commits the effort has a lot invested.
> >
> >
> > While we do not want to give cheaters any breaks, we still should want
>
> > a fair process.
> >
> > However, I still think the CCIE Proctors would never risk their
> > integrity or career on making such a mistake and the situation is
> > probably well-founded.
> >
> > Remember, what are the odds that 4 people taking the lab have the same
>
> > lab or even are taking the same track for that matter.
> >
> > So...
> >
> > Just sitting around not sleeping and decided to chime in.
> >
> > All any of has is an opinion.
> >
> > Since only a few people were there, only those folks know the facts.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Chris Tevlin <nobody@groupstudy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hitesh,
> > >
> > > I'm unclear what you hope to gain by posting
> > this thread here. It
> > > seems to me that there isn't any member of this
> > study group that can
> > > directly influence the decision made by Cisco
> > Systems. Under the
> > > circumstances, I find the practice of posting your
> > dialog with Cisco a
> > > bit distasteful. You are certainly free to post
> > what you'd like, but
> > > know that public opinion is a double-edged sword;
> > you may not achieve
> > > much sympathy. If you truly feel that you have
> > been unfairly accused,
> > > you must appeal to the decision authority
> > directly. Keep in mind that
> > > your conduct inside the exam is what has been
> > called into question,
> > > but your conduct outside of the exam is also
> > likely to matter if any
> > > further consideration is undertaken by Cisco.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > ""Hitesh Panchani"" wrote in message
> > > news:200710091607.l99G7jHU002598@groupstudy.com...
> > > > sad.gif
> > > > BANNED BY CISCO
> > > > sad.gif
> > > >
> > > > I was told by forum in Sadikhov to post my
> > problem
> > > here.
> > > >
> > > > I did CCIE lab exam and not receiving result
> > with
> > > in 48 hr so I contact
> > > > Cisco support desk. They told me I didn't done
> > lab
> > > yet. I told them this
> > > > is
> > > > my 3rd attempt for lab and I couldnb?Tt receive
> > my
> > > result yet. It is more
> > > > then 48hr and I couldnb?Tt receive my result and
> > I
> > > couldnb?Tt open my CCIE
> > > > login. Cisco did open my case cert case. Told by
> > > helpdesk some one will
> > > > contact in 48hr but still no contact in 48hr so
> > I
> > > did contact Cisco again
> > > > they said there is database have problem your
> > case
> > > is passed to IT staff
> > > > and
> > > > they will take 5 working days to respond. AS
> > soon
> > > as database fix will
> > > > give
> > > > you update. After 5 days they didn't contact so
> > I
> > > made contact again and
> > > > helpdesk told me Head of IT is dealing with your
> > > case and it took 7 days
> > > > to
> > > > investigate why database is missing. I made
> > > contact after 7days then Cisco
> > > > helpdesk says your case is in security officer
> > > they will contact in 10
> > > > day.
> > > > So we are closing your case now and you have to
> > > wait for security team
> > > > response they will send you mail or letter. I
> > > received mail from CISCO as
> > > > below:
> > > >
> > > > Via Federal Express and [Electronic Mail]
> > > >
> > > > Hitesh
> > > > Candidate ID 207489284
> > > > *******@hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > Address
> > > > United Kingdom, Europe
> > > >
> > > > Re: Violation of CCIE Candidate Conduct
> > > Policy-Possession of notes during
> > > > exam
> > > >
> > > > Dear Hitesh,
> > > > I am writing to you on behalf of Cisco, Inc.
> > > (b?oCiscob? ). It has come
> > > > to
> > > > our attention that on September 9th 2007 your
> > CCIE
> > > Lab exam proctor
> > > > discovered notes regarding exam question
> > > configurations at your assigned
> > > > testing station. The proctor reported that
> > upon
> > > confronting you with
> > > > these
> > > > notes that you admitted they belonged to you.
> > As
> > > you should be aware,
> > > > possession of notes during testing is a
> > violation
> > > of the Candidate Conduct
> > > > Policy which states:
> > > >
> > > > b?oNo candidate will take any action that will
> > > compromise the integrity or
> > > > confidentiality of a Cisco Certification
> > > examination or otherwise
> > > > compromise
> > > > the integrity of the Cisco Certification
> > program.
> > > Such actions include but
> > > > are not limited to:
> > > > Using any aids, notes, equipment or other
> > > materials not authorized by the
> > > > TestingDelivery Partners or Cisco during the
> > > exam.b?
> > > >
> > > > You signed a Cisco Career Certification and
> > > Confidentiality Agreement
> > > > that
> > > > prior to your exam. To paraphrase this
> > agreement,
> > > Cisco may at its sole
> > > > discretion revoke any and all Certifications you
> > > may have earned, and
> > > > permanently ban you from earning future
> > > Certifications if Cisco
> > > > determines,
> > > > in its sole discretion, that you have undertaken
> > > or participated in any
> > > > action that compromises the integrity and
> > > confidentiality of an
> > > > examination
> > > > or the Program.
> > > >
> > > > As a result, you are hereby permanently
> > prohibited
> > > from taking any Cisco
> > > > examinations, including CCIE written and
> > > laboratory examinations, and any
> > > > Cisco certifications with VUE, Ciscob?Ts
> > > Authorized Testing Delivery
> > > > Partner. Access to your candidate records in
> > the
> > > Certifications Tracking
> > > > System is also denied.
> > > >
> > > > The intention of Cisco career certifications is
> > to
> > > ensure high standards
> > > > of
> > > > technical expertise. Achieving Cisco
> > > certificationb?"at any levelb?"means
> > > > joining the ranks of skilled network
> > professionals
> > > who have earned
> > > > recognition and respect in the industry.
> > > Maintaining the integrity of
> > > > Cisco
> > > > certification programs and ensuring that only
> > > qualified individuals
> > > > receive
> > > > certification is in the interest of everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your cooperation.
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Kathe Saccenti, CCIE 2099
> > > > Mgr, Operations - Labs
> > > > Learning@Cisco.com
> > > > Cc: VQS JW
> > > >
> > > > REPLY FROM CISCO AFTER I REPLAYED TO ABOVE EMAIL
> > > >
> > > > As I stated in the letter I sent you, we reserve
> > > the right to deny
> > > > testing to individuals that violate our
> > policies.
> > > > The report and the evidence submitted,
> > correspond
> > > fully to your
> > > > configurations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Hp***** [mailto:hp*****@hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:16 AM
> > > > To: Kathe Saccenti (ksaccent)
> > > > Subject: Re: CCIE Notification
> > > >
> > > > Hi Kathe
> > > >
> > > > I deny any wrong doing with any cisco
> > > certification. I was called up by
> > > > the proctor after he had called the other
> > > candidate first, he presented
> > > > me with a piece of paper, said to be found on my
> > > desk. I denied it
> > > > immediately as I would be cheating with myself
> > > first. Proctor mention
> > > > there was a "access list" on that piece of
> > paper,
> > > to which I said "can I
> > > > see it" reply "no" at some point in proctor
> > > mention that "if it not
> > > > your, you do not need to worry about it", at
> > that
> > > point I left the
> > > > building. Proctor told me that somebody will
> > > contact me within 48hrs
> > > > will contact me, which never happen, that why I
> > > raised the ticket
> > > > (070911-000286)on 11 Sep 2007, not knowing what
> > > department to contact I
> > > > started the general query.
> > > >
> > > > I left my work in NOV 2006 to pursuit my long
> > term
> > > plan of obtaining the
> > > > CCIE. I have been planning to become CCIE since
> > > 2000 and gradually
> > > > getting closer to my goal (my life achievement).
> >
> > > If you look at your
> > > > records, this was my third attempt, and I was
> > > willing to one more
> > > > attempt before giving it up. The concept of
> > these
> > > labs is to understand
> > > > the technology first and later configuration
> > > command.
> > > >
> > > > I realised the importance of the standards set
> > by
> > > the CCIE
> > > > qualification. I would appreciate if you would
> > > reconsider your decision.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Hitesh
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:13 ART