Don't have much to add on the Chainforger discussion, but when it comes to the Dum survivors, I feel going for Conservative or 'Objective' courses is a mistake for our aims.
First, the Objective line:
Be factual and as objective as possible. You are here to inform and give opinions if asked, nothing more, nothing less. You can't say for certain if it's the best use of the opportunity, but some people will doubtlessly appreciate your attempt at objectivity. The question is whether they'll be Dwarfs whose opinions you particularly care for.
As long and white as Snorri's beard might be, he's still young compared to a number of the Runelords he'll be speaking to (I'd place him probably around middle to upper-middle in age, but that's guesswork). He has his biases, his preferences, and that is going to come through in his testimony. What he considers fact and what he considers opinion will be noted by the council, and that will lead not just to people using their own opinions of Snorri to help form their opinions of Kraka Grom, but the cession of some ability to helping the dwarfs of Grom reintegrate into the Karaz Ankor. These are initial opinions and impressions, and in going for Objectivity a number of Lords might come down on sides opposed to what Snorri, and us the voters, want. It's negligence nigh onto irresponsibility towards his duty as an Elder of Queen Valka and her people. He swore to help them, and while he's helped them build a home, he now has to help them keep it.
The best way to help ensure the Ankor doesn't fracture over the Dum Question is, I feel, to openly court political support or make plain what Snorri's goals are, which leaves impersonal objectiveness off the table.
Second, the Conservative line:
Try and earn the respect and interest of the more conservative members of the House. Emphasize the creativity of Dum's last Runesmiths, the efforts of Gazul, the securing of Guild Secrets and the elimination of any and all Frurndar and their foul assistance.
This is almost entirely centered around damage control. Securing Guild Secrets and eliminating the Frurndar by any means is what this is built around. This thinking has a direct line towards persecuting the survivors, of digging into their personal matters and guiding them back into proper dwarfish culture. This is a very risky path to my mind because of the personal and cultural trauma the dwarfs of Grom have. They can't just go back to being members of the Karaz Ankor, trusting in the wisdom of Elders and the benevolence of their Masters. They did that before and their reward was centuries of harrowing struggle as they dug deeper and deeper into the earth to escape the traitors who had conquered their home. They don't trust that easily, and that's just going to cause rising tensions until something happens.
The Radical line hits similar points, but is both couched in softer language, 'death of the Frurndar and their erstwhile allies' vs 'elimination of any and all Frurndar and their foul assistance,' and also gives credit to the Dum survivors in their own resourcefulness to keep on living and fighting. Out of the targeted political pitches it's the better one to me.
