The Problem of Good

[orangebox21]

If one actor has to make a decision to allow someone to do X, and that person can only do X if the actor acts, then the person cannot do X without the actor.  Period.

That's determinism.

If the person has a choice, then the outside actor isn't the only determining factor. Period. These things are tautologically true.

That's compatibilism.

If the person is responsible for doing good, then by very definition, God cannot be the only one making the choice.

That's libertarian free will.

Do you see that you used three different definitions of free will?  That's equivocation.  The conclusions you are coming to are a result of equivocation.

Splitting free will into different types is just a red herring at this point.

Not a red herring but a semantic dispute. 

"A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue. It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all. But very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy. It is also sometimes held that when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.). Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation."  Reference

The reason it's important to define our terms is to avoid a semantic dispute that result's in the fallacy of equivocation.  Professional debaters will agree that step one is defining the terms.

Our conversation has come to the point that in order to continue we need to switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms, with the intention of returning back to the thesis with a proper understanding of our terms.  If not, we'll end up talking past one another or equivocating within our arguments.