The input is taken from a negotiation between two participants who take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for Food, Water, and Firewood packages, based on their individual preferences and requirements. Given an utterance and recent dialogue context containing past 3 utterances (wherever available), output Yes if the utterance contains the other-need strategy, otherwise output No. other-need is a selfish negotiation strategy. It is used when the participants discuss a need for someone else rather than themselves. For instance, describing the need for firewood to keep the kids warm.
Example: Context: 'I was hoping to get alot of water as well, would you be ok with me getting two waters and three firewoods if you get all the food and one water?' 'Hmm, that's not favorable for me going by the volume of items left in my arsenal. Water is more of a higher priority than food. So, I would exchange 1 pack of food for an additional water' 'So that way you would get two waters and two foods? Those are my priorities as well but i would be ok with it since that way i would get five items and you would get only four.'
Utterance: 'Those are your priorities?? Then that's not fair for you. Then I take 2 water, 1 firewood and 1 food. This is the lowest I can offer'
Example solution: No
Example explanation: This is correct. The participant does not create a specific need for anybody.

Problem: Context: 'Thank you for the two firewoods. I totally understand that. Since we do have young children I want to make sure they stay hydrated so I would be willing to give you two if I can just have on extra for them.' 'OK. Your children must be hungry, could we give them two food while we keep one?' 'That would be wonderful. Okay so I'll take two Firewoods, two food, and one water. Does that work?'
Utterance: 'Almost. I actually had a disagreement with one of my friends just now because he is a bigger guy, haha! 🙂 Could we keep one of those foods for him? I'll give you another firewood for it.'

Solution: Yes