I mean, I know I'm a good cult target. That's not news to me. That doesn't mean I am going to get Culted, it means that if you asked the average player who they pick, I expect I'd be named a few times. It doesn't really mean anything, and is not justification for suspicion. Though, I want you to really think through your line of reasoning, because to me, it's at best idiotic. Imagine my Cult leader got caught, and my way of defending that, which is obviously bad for me, is to treat the one claiming the investigation as an investigator, and comment on them claiming too early, instead of, I dunno, trying to discredit the investigation? You realise that if my leader dies I would almost certainly lose the game, so I'd have no reason not to overextend either? It really makes no sense. My comments to Light had absolutely no chance of changing the direction of the lynch. So I mean, which is it to be Usopp? Am I incompetent and incapable of constructing an actual defence, or am I competent and thus a good cult target?
In a hilarious twist of irony, if anyone "soft-defended" Queen here, it's you, with your banal "she might pass on her recruit when she dies". It's not exactly a great soft-defence, which is why I didn't push it as an angle, but it does in part detract from the necessity of a Queen lynch today, because well, she might pass it on. If that were the case, lynching would be redundant, because we'd just be helping the cult recruit transfer from a player we know is scum, to anyone, who we don't know. So what we'd have to do is slide a block on Queen, and then hunt for whomever she recruited, and once we find them, then lynch Queen, knowing that she's the last member of her Cult. Obviously, I don't support this action, because I find the very idea of a Cult that can inherit the recruiter's recruit to be absurdly broken and nigh-on unwinnable, but if we were to take it on board as you would have us do, lynching Queen would actually be sub-optimal.