Roleplaying isn't measured in right or wrong
There's only very few things in roleplaying that are decidedly right in all situations. There are a few things that are just wrong, but in general every style of roleplaying is valid in some way or another.
What is wrong roleplay?
Wrong roleplaying is technically beyond the line of what is roleplaying at all. Think of things that are endangering people or are illegal, but which a person might claim to be just roleplaying. If your character is about to backstab the goblin raider, swinging wildly with a prop foam dagger might still be acceptable but using a kitchen knife would not be roleplaying but premeditated murder.
Op is experiencing a situation where a specific style (more on what is a style below) seems to be a silent group consensus. It's unclear if OP joined the group after its founding or if it was founded together with them but the others have played together before.
In any way, a group can have style expectations in several ways. In text-based RPGs via irc, telnet or forums, it's common that third-person is the expected style when referring to the character, but first-person style RPG isn't too uncommon either.
Some groups are stricter in enforcing style than others. In second-life, there's the visual avatar (and animations), sound-gestures, voice-chat, and both private as well as public text-chats to commence your roleplaying. However most roleplaying Sims do turn off voice chat, and some have a style guide about prescribing or banning a specific list of avatar styles (e.g. "no furry avatars") and even going so far as indicating a preferred length for replies ("poses"). In many sims I visit, people will also automatically use nigh-exclusively third person. People using first-person are talked to, or shunned.
How to treat OOC can be part of the group style. In a larp environment, it is often considered rude to address anything in an out-of-character manner, unless you are clearly in the Out-Time zone or it is some kind of emergency. In a LARP, the primary expectation is not to say anything in indirect or descriptive ways, but to act out whatever you want to do and say everything your character wants to say by saying it yourself. It's not ok to use first-person-exterior "I tell the servant off." but it's expected to talk first-person actor style "Begone, servant. You are dismissed."
Dealing with group expectations & styles
To learn about a group style, you first have to talk about it. Once you know it, you can evaluate if you feel uneasy with it, and then you have to talk to the players as a player, explaining what you are comfortable with and why. A possible starter could be akin to:
I noticed you all use the first person singular for your character actions. Is that mandatory?
If the other players all want to play with a first-person narration style, that's their preferred style as it can further immersion, and it is a valid opinion.
If you find third-person narration style better, because of whatever reason, that is your opinion and it is valid.
However, while both are valid, sometimes styles get in the way of roleplaying your character. If, as the querent experiences, the group shuns a specific style and tries to enforce theirs, the group should make that style expectation clear. If there is a serious reason that bars someone from following the style expectations, then that can be explored in a discussion, and maybe the expectations can be adjusted. But if the expectations are too crass from one another, then maybe the group and the player are not a good fit.
In a satirical example, think about a group that wants to play extreme grimdark future in Warhammer 40.000, each character is expected to be a Hive-city underling that is fed on corpse starch and has killed about two to three handfuls of people already when the character crawls out of character generation. And then a new player comes around and wants to play a pink pony talking about friendship... Yea, that is so not going to go well.
In a similar fashion, the way you refer to your character as either the character or I can be a point of contention, and it's best to talk about it.
And in the end, it boils down to No roleplay is better than bad roleplay
What is style?
Roleplaying in general is a method to tell your part of a collaborative story. How the story is told is a question of style. Let me grab some literary examples...
The bartender's smile widened. His ugliness was the stuff of
legend. In an age of affordable beauty, there was something heraldic about
his lack of it. The antique arm whined as he reached for another mug. It was
a Russian military prosthesis, a seven-function force-feedback manipulator,
cased in grubby pink plastic. "You are too much the artiste, Herr Case."
Ratz grunted; the sound served him as laughter. He scratched his overhang of
white-shirted belly with the pink claw. "You are the artiste of the slightly
She hands me a security pass that has “visitor” very firmly stamped on the front. I can’t help my smirk. Surely it’s obvious that I’m just visiting. I don’t fit in here at all. Nothing changes. I inwardly sigh. Thanking her, I walk over to the bank of elevators and past the two security men who are both far more smartly dressed than I am in their well-cut black suits.2
He sat back. A sense of complete helplessness had descended upon him. To
begin with, he did not know with any certainty that this was 1984. It
must be round about that date, since he was fairly sure that his age was
thirty-nine, and he believed that he had been born in 1944 or 1945; but
it was never possible nowadays to pin down any date within a year or two.3
We got three excerpts from books here, all tell the story extremely differently. Neuromancer, the first quote, uses a third-person external view of all actions, depicting the bartender and all the actions from the outside. We learn what the character looks like, sounds like, and even can imagine how touching them would feel like, but no introspective into the feelings and thoughts. The next quote from 50 Shades of Grey is in the first-person and describes the actions taken as if a very self-conscious person is narrating the world to themselves. As a stark difference to the two, 1984 is in third-person, introspective but also shows us to some degree unreliable.
But all of these writing styles are valid. They might not be good styles for all goals, but they are styles. They help in telling the story in different ways, to feel differently about the plot and actions.
Now, roleplaying also has styles. And again, let's make examples... or rather, let me ask in Chat to help make some examples of how to phrase the same basic setup of a rogue trying to open a lock to the GM.
Trish: My character got Thieves Tools and proficiency. When I try to carefully pick the lock, what's the DC?
Alan: I carefully examine the area approaching the lock for anything out of the ordinary. Then ever so gently I insert one pick, listening and feeling for any signs of a trap. If I don't sense something wrong, I drop to one knee before the door to bring my eyes closer to the lock as I pull out another pick, using the pair to slowly probe the inner workings of the mechanism, waiting until I hear the tumblers settle into place. - 2023.02.05-10:05AM GMT
Thomas Markov: I will punch the door with my thieves tools. - 2023.02.05-12:43PM GMT
GM: Ok... uh... Roll me a... strength check with... I guess you get proficiency bonus on that one.
All of these are equally valid ways to phrase what your character does. They just are different in style. The one is rather matter of factly, glossing over the details and interested in the mechanics. The other explains in detail what the character does. But both are valid roleplaying examples and just different styles.
When roleplaying, you tend to talk about good and bad roleplaying.
As established, most roleplaying is style dependent, and there can be a group expectation. That leads to the conclusion that not all styles are good for all groups. As show, the surroundings can radically alter what is expected, and sometimes it is spelled out more than other times.
Some styles are almost always bad for a table. For example, there's an essay on Bad Roleplaying, discussing from an angle of forum roleplays, but which is in big parts applicable for roleplaying in general. It identifies four indicators for bad roleplaying, two of which can be valid tools if used correctly. I will discuss those points below.
But besides those indicators of bad roleplaying, there's another factor that has to be discussed first: Bad roleplaying is any roleplaying you personally feel uncomfortable with enduring it. Like, if you are very pro-X, being in a group that constantly voices anti-X opionions. That is not bad style, this type of bad roleplaying is just bad as in bad for you. If you are faced with that, try to talk about it to make it better, or leave such a game that stresses you for your own good.
Godmoding is... well, a character of a player that godmodes is typically a Mary Sue or Gary Stu. They know everything, they have always the right tool on hand and are just perfect... Blessed are you when characters have a proper sheet and everything is accounted for on the sheet, for that prevents godmodeing in the first place...
At least till the player starts to cheat and on their own adds items or feats to the character sheet without being allowed to, ignores damage taken or fudges dice. In other words: Godmodeing is usually the same as cheating around a table.
Powerplaying or Powerposing is dictating results on other characters when you don't have the right to do so. A particularly grevious example would be:
GM: You stand in front of the goblin king, disarmed, hands bound with hemp rope and naked. He is starting to ta...
Groanan: I tear my shackles, jump forward and slap the goblin king in the face, turning it into pulp, filling the vacuum between its ears with air for the first time as he dies. All the other goblins cower or run in fear.
Groanen (the barbarian) not just broke the game rules, he also committed to bad roleplaying. Of course the GM can say "it doesn't happen that way." and demand rolls, but in general, it's just bad form to dictate the other players and the surrounding elements, unless that is specifically allowed by the GM or the game rules.
Nimble: Do I see anything odd in the next hall?
Nimble: I walk down the hall.
The GM rolls dice
Nimble: Did I say walk down the hall? I meant sneak down the hall.
GM: So why didn't you say sneak before?
Nimble: I shouldn't have to. I'm a thief, I sneak everywhere I go.
[... a little discussion.]
GM: Fine wine, we'll do it again...
The GM rolls dice, as before.
[Discussion till another rollback happens, then another, sending the tank forward this last time.]
You do remember this epic scene from The Gamers, right? Well, THIS is what a retcon is. Whenever a player faces consequences they don't like, they either argue till it is rolled back and they can fix it, or they just wipe the event happening from history.
Retconning can be bad roleplaying because it makes people upset because it creates wonky continuity of the games played and in general, violates the tenet of "In Character Action results in In Character Consequences". It also involves a lot of often angry discussions, and thus isn't helpful for good relations among players.
But not all Retconning is bad. A good retcon doesn't roll back everything, but only fixes a particular bad aspect with group consensus or where things were mixed up. For example, erasing that a player accidentally metagamed and mentioned Player knowledge ICly that the character doesn't have is a good retcon, but usually happens on demand of the group or GM. Another example of a good retcon is if the player mentions, that they forgot to play out the crippled foot in the last two turns, and then re-calculates the position on the battlefield, as long as it doesn't start to invalidate the whole combat. Or of course, erasing the bad roleplaying that just happened - that's a good retcon too.
metagaming is using player-knowledge that the PC doesn't have or shouldn't have to determine actions.
If the Lvl 0 halfling commoner Bilbo Baggins from Bag's End (not lvl 10 Rogue(Thief) Baggins in possession of a certain ring) can name you the line of kings of Gondor down to a certain Aragorn and identify Strider as that one without being told it before... then the player has just metagamed because he read LotR.
Metagaming is also looking up monster statistics between games, and often some degree of metagaming is ok, or even encouraged by some games (like paranoia). How much a group is comfortable allowing is group dependant. As a result, I believe this is somewhat the least of the four types, and also not always bad roleplaying, though it can be distracting.
1 - Gibson, William: Neuromancer, New York (1984).
2 - James, E L: 50 Shades of Grey, New York (2011).
3 - Orwell, George: Nineteen Eighty Four, London (1949)