No problem. I'm also aiming for a non-confrontational tone, that's sometimes difficult in text.

I also think that the differing terminology and associated framing leads to important higher order differences. Do you disagree?

I don't know. I haven't pinpointed the higher order differences that you're trying to articulate.

I do stand by my point that regardless of your definition of "terminal goal", I can construct a game in which the optimal move is to change them. I readily admit that under certain definitions of "terminal goal" such games are uncommon.

What is your take on the "do the same thing without Dark" approach?

If it's the branding that's annoying you, see this comment -- it seems my idea of what qualifies as "dark arts" may differ from the consensus.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by getting the same effects without the "darkness". I am quite confident that there are mental states you can only access via first-order self deception, and that it is instrumentally rational to do so. Michael Bloom provides another crisp example of this. I am skeptical that there are ways to attain these gains without self-deception.