While it is unrealistic to assume users of online debate platforms to read and interpret all the arguments available, it is important to understand how positions will emerge on the basis of a fraction of those arguments. What arguments exactly will be accessed by users depend on assumptions on the platform design or on the readers' behaviours. Young et al. were the rst to explore this question and report results in the context of an underlying extension-based semantics. We undertake a similar study in the context of gradual semantics, using a more comprehensive set of metrics, testing a larger number of behaviours, and come to di erent conclusions. We show in particular that a reading behaviour balancing supports and attacks provides interesting results.