I like how the act of simply waiting for a problem to go away on its own is described as "using" something to do anything. I mean, they are the institution that set up the framework for the Standard rotation in the first place, so it is technically true that they're the ones "using" it. But that's not the way a normal person would describe the process. He even says that the rotation "helps" to phase out "problematic cards" when it is the process that does this entirely on its own. If I eat an entire pizza by myself I don't say that I "helped to eat the pizza." Letting a problem go away on its own with time through an established system of things going away with time isn't a tool. It's just doing nothing. I know I come across as pedantic sometimes (a lot?), but honestly I do not think this issue by itself is a big deal. I do think the description reads as rather silly, though.Unlike nonrotating formats, where the best option for making balance adjustments in a timely fashion is by banning cards, we prefer whenever possible to use Standard's rotation to help phase out problematic cards and pave the way for new strategies in a natural and predictable cycle.