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.
One 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'
Solution is here: No
Explanation: This is correct. The participant does not create a specific need for anybody.

Now, solve this: Context: 'Maybe I could take 2 firewood 2 food and 0 waters?' 'I was planning on staying up all night and keeping my fire going all night.  Honestly I could give you all the extra food if that helps you if I could please have the 3 firewood?  We could split the waters' 'I'll only give you all the firewood if you give me everything else. I know it's your top priority😮'
Utterance: 'How about I take all the wood, give you all the food, you can have 2 waters and I can have one.  Having a little extra water will help me with all the hiking we will be doing, plus since i wont be eating much I want to stay hydrated.  Will that work for you>>🙂'
Solution:
No