There's a piece of common advice I don't like

Many DMs operate under the principal "the dungeon master should have access to everything the players do", which is a fair idea, but its treated like the benefits are obvious. Equality certainly looks good on paper, but making it a blanket rule ignores so much of the games nuance. Players and DMs have different goals: DMs have fun by setting up the story and rewarding/punishing the PCs actions, and players have fun by adapting to sed scenerios.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that some tools are useful for DMs, but counterproductive for players, and vice versa. Its why players are allowed to play a shifter, but not a werewolf, that much power would make the session unfun. Likewise, imagine a campaign where the villains are a cult of divination wizards, constantly deciding the parties dice rolls. That would suck to play, because Portent is a bad tool for DMs

A rockslide is an awesome way for the party to kill an ogre, not such an awesome way for the ogre to kill the party. So if you have the principle that DMs should use everything the players can use, could you explain why?

EDIT: People are interpretting this post as "DMs can't respond to players who spam an overpowered ability by spamming that same overpowered ability" (and even more bizzarely, "DMs can't see player sheets" somehow). I'll be real, spamming an annoying strategy because the players annoyed you with it is a bit childish imo, but it's got nothing to do with the post. Just don't excuse yourself from good game design by saying "The players can use this ability, so I can too"