Posted! Hope you guys enjoy! :)

Wrong. She's 10.5 years old :D

She'd also dug herself a grave had she been dealing with bandits or cannibals. But luckily, it happened to be Annette's group.

Has nothing to do with her acting. She acted in an Adam Sandler comedy for Christ's sake.

It has more to do with spending 6 months outside, being taught by someone not opposed to such things and being desperate.

She'd also made a ton of mistakes. Making noise in the vents, not waiting for the boy to leave, shouting, dealing with the boy poorly, sshooting, did not kill the man in one shot, and the worst of it all is that she trapped herself. Being unable to deal with her situation well, which lead her to commit all these mistakes in the first place. And the biggest mistake of them all is that she's assaulting an otherwise friendly group. Heck, she couldn't even talk right after all she'd been through and she'd failed in all her objectives despite having the element of surprise and superior firepower, how about you put it that way?

I'm under the impression actually that most of the characters could approach the situation better in her shoes. David or Ames would have left everyone dead and be gone very quickly rather than causing a scene. Or heck, most of the characters would have come up with a diplomatic solution that's far less risky.

I tried my best ever since the conception of the character to make her a realistic young survivor who might be skilled but is otherwise young and inexperienced and broken and so will make mistakes and bad decisions.

Anyway, we'll let our Pal be the judge.

Honey, that's completely different from what you were saying in the previous post. Previously it would have been a problem with my post. Now it's a problem with my character.

But I think there's even more misunderstanding, and this time I think it means I'd have to brush up on my character sheet. By 'nearly' being on top, I'm saying that she's like in the 20th to 11th percentile, which isn't bad. Wasn't the 10th percentile defined as being best?

And in the sports part, I'm merely saying that she gets by in the fitness zone. I guess maybe I'm being too kind with my words.

I did mention though that she's better with the arts than the sciences. I mention that she's not as good in her mathematics and science. Maybe I should have elaborated more then.

As for survival skills... My reasoning is that those kids that don't have it died one way or the other. Either that or they had someone to protect them. Valentina was the latter in the first half of her new life and the former in her second half. She'd even killed children who happened to be on the opposite end of any conflict she was involved in, one or a few of whom were innocent kids being kids. Unless you want me roleplay as a dead kid stuck in the ditches, but that would be difficult.

That said, I've been looking for feedback all along! Why didn't you tell me in the beginning that that's what you were trying to give me? :D

That said I'll make the changes when I get back home. Like 15 hours from now. Today's going to be a very busy day *shudders*

I don't understand how I'm being condescending to you. Neither is my brain plugged into the internet, thank god, so I don't see how you could even attempt to read my mind.

I don't think my character is overpowered in proportion to what she'd been through. You gotta also think of what my character don't have. Other than the stuff I've stated, you gotta figure out what's in between the lines that's going to stop her from dominating.

Her being a kid, no matter how skilled she is in whatever she does, everything she has is downscaled according to her age and size. Then there are the things that are outright barred from her. I'm talking about both physical and mental things.

Then I've thrown in all her weaknesses, character flaws. I think it's just that I haven't even begin to play Valentina out yet, which is why you can't see exactly what's going on. Like how the weaknesses I've given her could be crippling, qnd how her history is going to really limit her.

Edit: then of course, there's the definition of the Mary Sue and if my character fits that description.

A Mary Sue is a character that's a perfect version of the author, who usually is a projection of what the author wishes to do in a fictional environment.

So, haha, no. I have absolutely no wish to be anything like Valentina and what she's doing isn't what I'd do.

@McHaggis Even when we take into account all definitions of the Mary Sue, it's still rather difficult to call Valentina a Mary Sue.

Let's say we use the definitions found in these sources:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mary+Sue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

One definition is that the Mary Sue is the ideal version of the author, placed in a fan fiction to carry out the wishes of the author to interact with canon characters, usually there's a romantic relationship involved. First of all, this is not a fanfiction. Secondly, I am a guy, not a gal. Thirdly, Valentina is nothing like me. Fourthly, the only romantic relationship between Valentina and another character is an unfulfilled one (and even then, her feelings are naive, pre-sexual and undeveloped), and neither is there much chance at all for there to be any romantic relationship beause she's a kid and her crush is only with someone who had disappeared for 2 months.

Then there's this: "The Mary Sue is an absolutely perfect OC. They usually have bad pasts, never get angry, be skilled in every skill, have magical powers, be over powered, and never loses. They usually have the rarest abilities and are soooo unique. (Not at all)."

Valentina is not absolutely perfect. The existence of the weakness section ensures that. Her history section ensures that.

Valentina has a bad past, but then this is a symptom that all characters here possess. Are you ready to call all the characters in this RP Mary Sues/Marty Stus?

Valentina gets angry all the time.

Valentina is not skilled in every skill. I've written clearly about this. She sucks at mathematics and the sciences. She's careless and reckless. She's inexperienced. Will make mistakes. She is outright defined by what had troubled her.

Valentina has no magical powers.

Valentina is on the verge of being overpowered.

Valentina is on the verge of losing in a conflict.

That's a score of 1/7. So Valentina is still a Mary Sue?

And then there's this definition: "A character too perfect for their setting. Most often, this character is talented and attractive, and anyone who doesn't adore them is portrayed as mean, stupid, or evil. It's common for them to be the smartest, even if this requires everyone else to act stupider than they should. Out of place but awesome names are also frequent occurrences. They lead charmed lives, and any conflict or drama they are met with will be either overdone to the point of headache induction, or easily brushed aside."

Valentina has her talents. Sure. So does everyone else. Another symptom found everywhere.

Valentina is scarred. She has a blind eye, for goodness sakes. The original plans had her scarred even worse, and the previous version has a reverse-frown scar on a cheek! She could still be considered attractive, but she's not top in that category. She's written as dirty and no longer meticulous with her fashion anymore. Oh, and by the way, she's 10 years old (and a half). Attractive isn't even the right word to use here. I hope you're not attracted to 10(and a half)-year-olds, because that would be troubling, miss.

I don't plan to depict everyone who doesn't adore her to be stupid, mean or something. Valentina, for now, is either an anti-villain or anti-hero here. She's in the wrong immediately in my debut post.

Valentina is certainly not the smartest. She needed to be taught, and she'd just screwed up big time over and over again.

I don't plan to force all of you to roleplay your characters as being more stupid than a 10.5 year old.

Valentina Vetrov's name can be considered out of place, but I'm not sure about the awesome bit. But then again the US is an immigrant country. What do you want me to do. I'll consider this half true I suppose.

Valentina's life is anything but charmed.

The conflict and drama Valentina enters into wasn't brushed aside easily. They had serious consequences. I don't know what headache induction is. I'll consider this half true then, because of the latter.

So that's 2/8. Mary Sue?

Furthermore, there are alot of meanings attached to terms of endearment. I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm trying to be understanding. You've made serious mistakes in your argument, and my response is to let you know, move the discussion and hope to reach a conclusion. I'm trying to be nice, I'm trying to compromise. What more do you want? The fact that I'm trying to do the right stuff doesn't mean I'm going to be a pushover however. How can I take your accusation without trying to defend myself? And this time, I know for a fact that I'm actively avoiding the Mary Sue.

Guys, take it to PM. This is not a good precedent for the OOC and is pretty unprofessional between players. I'm sure the GM will not be happy to wake up to this.

@Gowi As far as I'm concerned I'm trying to establish my character as a proper one instead of the 'Mary Sue' that I have been brutally accused of writing. In fact, I'm being incredibly civil and professional about this compared to what I've seen out there. I haven't hurled insults (though I've been accused of it), I haven't hurled vulgarities, and I'm completely on the defensive. I don't plan to drag anything personal into this, and I don't plan to drag things that are out-of-point into this.

Is it so hard to just transition to PM rather than bogging this thread down with more superfluous personal debate on if or if not your character is a "mary sue/overpowered/unbalanced" or whatever? Why is it so difficult for you? Leave it dead in the water so this OOC can not be bogged down any further.

Drop it.

Do not reply to this message; go to PM. I know that's what Pal would want.

So let me get this straight.

You say that my character is a Mary Sue.

Ghost Shadow and you, Gowi, are practically saying the same thing by liking that post.

I try to defend my character.

You knit-pick at one contentious word, ignores all the rest of my statement(s).

And now you expect me to shut up and basically take everything you said lying down and letting you have your way, all on your whim? Because you can't justify your statement and aren't even willing to put the case you opened to rest?

Honestly, this is outrageous.

EDIT: I know whose side you're on, Gowi. Seems to me that you think every single thing McHaggis puts on the page is right. While I'm wrong to even so much as respond. I find it interesting and amusing how I'm targeted throughout this whole joke.

I don't know, I'd be hard pressed to imagine even David Levitski or Warren Ames doing the same (and they're the badasses of the group imo!)

By the way, this was what I liked. Always cool to see my characters being referenced for being noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Raven, I suggest you halt whatever choice presumptions you have as they are only working against you. Nonetheless, it's about time we get the RP's OOC back on track.

I want to thank those who've mentioned Levitski and gave me positive outlook on him when he was a character I made off the top of my head.

Anyway, I guess I should get a new Levitski post going.

Lorna's post is half-finished, but only because I got distracted by looking up synonyms for a word #englishproblems

I’ve been working on getting two of my own games running (not to mention a friend wants me to run a third game, so I imagine my RP schedule is going to be quite busy), so I’ve been pressed for time. Plus on the freetime I do have I decided to play Call of Juarez: Gunslinger which was on sale for like three bucks (as was Far Cry: Blood Dragon) so yeeeeah.

I’m still trying to figure where to take David’s mini-plot here, tricky indeed.

<Snipped quote>

By the way, this was what I liked. Always cool to see my characters being noted for being noteworthy enough to be mentioned. Raven, I suggest you halt whatever choice presumptions you have as they are only working against you.

Anyway, I guess I should get a new Levitski post going.

Fair enough. Then I'll discount that point against you. The like system is imprecise and you knew it. McHaggis' post was about my character being utter rubbish. Your character is mentioned in one word or phrase. And you liked the entire post instead of putting up your own. You're either a liar or you made a serious mistake in expression; either way, you've done something wrong.

One thing remains though. You don't seem to mind McHaggis essentially calling what someone had painstaking written utter rubbish (Mary Sues are utter rubbish as far as I know), while you seem to mind the targeted person trying to fend for himself. If through logic and discussion, I'm convinced that the character is rubbish, I would have accepted that. But all I get are a few flimsy scraps of 'arguments' based on words I wrote that could be interpreted in a wide range of ways, and then I was shut up.

You put yourself in my shoes. How would you feel if I call Levitski an utter rubbish character? That he's a Gary Stu/Marty Stu? And then when you try to convince me that it isn't, that you'll make sure he won't be, I brush you off and shut you up, saying that I don't care for it anymore, and that your character will remain an utter rubbish heap for as long as I'm alive?

It is an attack. And what followed was one person forcing her will onto another. How can that be condoned? When one is attacked, one must defend himself. When one's free will is taken away, one must fight for it. How can that be wrong?