A more feasible situation is where Blizzard may choose to implement a change that makes things more grindy and less convenient rather than less grindy and more convenient.
It’s entirely possible that the Bliz Devs have very different views on what makes a good game than the community do. Take the changes to the Arena points system as an example.
So, let’s say Blizzard were of the view that there was too much gold and it was trivializing respec costs, so they increased the cost to 100g. Is that a change you would support? I suspect not, because I think you have a tendency to support more convenience and flexibility rather than less. That forms some of the basis of how you assess the merits of a change (I suspect).
This is what I think Zipzo is driving at here - what heuristic are you using to determine “good” changes from “bad” changes.
Btw the scenario I raise is entirely plausible, the Devs have form - eg. reducing honor points accrual, imposing rating requirements on season 1 arena gear etc. None of which were popular.