Prok states in his blog:
My ultimatum to NCI is in keeping with the lease terms that require that tenants be considerate to neighbours and not violate the TOS.
The Woodbury University group is filled with people who have repeatedly violated the TOS with prim littering, spamming, racism, obscenity, stalking, harassment, etc. Dozens of them actively doing this constantly, daily. If NCI has a member of its staff who also participates in this group, and not only passively but actively appearing during griefing raids and actively harassing from stalking and playing "under-the-radar" griefing games, then NCI can't be allowed to be a tenant.
I don't allow Woodbury or Emerald Users and Coders group members to rent from me as is known because *their officers repeatedly grief me*. This isn't some sort of "discrimination"; it's a normal policy not to tolerate griefing of me and my tenants, first and foremost.
NCI with the Imnotoing debacle is a magnet for griefing, not a helper of newbies and I see no reason why it has to be on my property.
Whatever Carl's reasoning on the notion of "NCI not giving in to ultimatums," the point is, a consumer boycott and a merchants' boycott of NCI is in order until it changes its policies, just like consumer boycotts of, oh, Wal-marts are done in RL.
NCI goes on my no-rent list; it comes off my recommendations lists for newbies. Only consumer action works in SL given there aren't courts and the ability to mount suits for protective orders or torts.