It's a game. The idea asks the developers to code in the ability to block other players from seeing trades unless the offeror wants to share. I think protectionism is a perfectly viable use in this context.
Never claimed it did. I think it benefits anyone who wants to play that game, and it is a detriment to anyone who is not in a Fellowship, plus some who are in fellowships that are smaller, less active, or not well balanced, since it denies them available trades. If it gets implemented I will use it extensively. I don't think I should have it available to me, because I don't think it make the game better and I think it will have a negative impact on the game's long-term viability.
No, you didn't claim that it did, but when, rhetorically speaking, a speaker mentions negative motivations (like "self serving") without examining the other reasons for the persons position, it infers that the main or most prominent thing motivating their position is that it is "self-serving." I'm trying to point out that it is irrelevant if it serves the speaker or not and that there are other reasons it can be supported. The device of suggesting self-serving motivations for the speakers position is an ad hominem remark and, traditionally, not in keeping with a well-reasoned debate.
Now, for your other claim that it is harmful to small fellowships and individual players. Let's examine that. If I put up a 2 star trade to my fellowship alone the goods I'm trading may take longer to be filled since there are fewer people seeing the trade. If I put up 3 star trade under the same circumstances, ditto. In other words, there is a disadvantage to restricting access to the trades. But let's say some of my neighbors restrict their trades to their fellowship. Why would they do that if it lessens the chances of the trade being taken quickly? The answer: they wouldn't. If it doesn't matter who takes your trade then you wouldn't restrict it. But what if those same traders decide they want their fellowship to take the trade? If they do, as I've said, it's only because they want to keep the goods in their fs (meaning keeping their fs more balanced one would suppose) or they want to help some other player or receive help from some other player in their fs.
If the motivation for the trade is to keep in in the fs in the first place and if they can't do that without excess risk, they won't put the trade up. OR they might put it up but attempt to coordinate it's reception with the targeted player in their fs. This scenario, under the current system, is cumbersome and risky since if the one supplying the goods puts the goods up at a favorable rate they might very well go outside the fellowship and thus harm the balance or at least not allow a fellowship player to be assisted.
In other words, the types of trades you would restrict to your fellowship wouldn't be intended for people out of your fellowship in the first place and thus would not be posted, which means the individual and small fellowship players would see little to no change in the number of trades available.
To the argument that fellowships would use the "fellowship only" button to keep goods within your fellowship, I concur. But isn't it part of any organization to manage and conserve their resources for themselves if that is the most profitable (or useful) route? That such a restriction might hurt others in the neighborhood by lessening the amount of trades available to them, is true, but, as noted, the amounts wold be very small, and it's also true that the one posting those trades and restricting them may be costing themselves something as well, especially if the trades, had they been offered to everyone, are not taken as quickly (which on average they wouldn't be snce they would be offered to fewer buyers).
That's my reasoning as to the question of if individual and small fellowships would be hurt by this idea. I concur that they might on occasion, miss some of those trades, but that the vast majority of them are not put up in the first place because, as favorable trades, they can be taken by "outsiders" before the targeted player gets to them.
On the positive side though, posting them with restrictions means you could potentially fill the trades with all sorts of "help" for your players. In fact, you could use the trade board as a sort "community" chest where goods are always available in various amounts -- some favorable, some not. In addition, on the positive side you would also encourage new and inexperienced players by posting those favorable trades (and thus help them grow faster). And, since you could see who is taking your trades you could also use the fact that they are consistently taking certain trades to start a conversation about trading/how their city is doing (maybe they aren't set up right and always need planks when they are boosted in planks).
Overall I think you are mistaken in thinking that the trades which are made under the current system would be the same type as under one in which you can restrict who sees the trade. By adding a restriction check box you would see different types of trades and more of them for the fellowship as they posted trades they wouldn't dare make if they couldn't restrict who took them.
I remain favorably disposed to the idea.
AJ