Talk:Burning Down the House/@comment-146.200.159.146-20150101232549/@comment-1739368-20150330173947

I believe the rules are purposely vague to allow room for interpretation and loopholes. The rule states that a user can not have a another stand, but does not state that a user can use another stand, creating a distinction between ownership and temporary exploit. This concept is the basis of when we lend other's something, as we have to make apparent the difference between 'having' and 'borrowing.' In Polnareff, Rohan, and Emporio's cases, their situations can be considered as making temporary use of someone else's stand but not particularly claiming permemnant ownership of them.