I'm guessing you changed this name (and the implementation) because it didn't tell the full story before. I think it still doesn't, since the name suggests a single conditional but there are actually two. I realize this would add some duplication, but I think it would be easier to understand if we separated the standalone setting logic from the standalone respecting logic e.g.

```ruby
# pseudo code
def any_of_the_call_sites(*args)
  process_standalone_filters(*args)
  unless_standalone_filter { do_something_with(*args) }
end

def process_standalone_filters(*args)
  override_filters(args.last) if not already_set_standalone_filter? and is_standalone_filter(args.last)
end

def unless_standalone_filter
  yield unless already_set_standalone_filter?
end
```

I'm not in love with the name `process_standalone_filters`, but I could live with it absent a better option. The main thing is that I think the separation makes it easier to understand what's going on from each call site. WDYT?