What is up with GC response to LFR?

[Aceshigh]

Maybe I'm missing part of the argument, so forgive me. MSV 460, HOF\TOES 470, TOT 480, SoO 496. So 10, 10...16. They raised the ilvl requirement by an extra 6 for the last one. If you have PG gold, you could get in at 490. Doesn't seem that far fetch really. I don't see them retrofitting it, but going forward I see this easily doable.
Won't fix the LFR problem at all, but shouldn't hurt it.

I understand that the item levels are different to get in, but that doesn't mean they raised the ilvl SOLELY because there is a way to get in lower. I don't think they would ever consider that. The lower ilvl is the bonus, a higher ilvl isn't a penalty it is what they originally tuned the LFR for. So say they were to say "Doing SoO you can get in a 496 but if you have done PG's you can get in at 485". Having to wait till 496 isn't a penalty for not doing PGs, it is what they intended the LFR to be tuned at for most players. If you can show that you are exceptional at your role (if that is the definition they give to completing PGs) you get a bonus, aka access to LFR before it was intended. What I am saying is that they won't raise the ilvl as a penalty to people who don't do PGs, and I think that argument is extremely, extremely unlikely to the point where I don't think they would consider looking at it from the view of penalizing players.

The part you specifically quoted was me saying that I can NEVER see them bumping the ilvl req of a CURRENT lfr.

[Zoreyai]

No idea what's going on. GC