instruction:
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.
question:
Context: 'what i mean by prevention of excess is that we should focus on getting excess and not to limit it regardless of what we already have because if we should offer some creative approaches by excess. we can both come to an agreement if you are interested.' 'Okay. Lets just try to do some negotiation. I am the most interested in getting more WATER. The water I already have at the campsite looks dirty so, if it is okay with you, I would like all THREE of them. My food has also been stolen by bears and I don't make much left, so I would like TWO of the food items. You can have all the firewood and the other food item. How does that sound? 🙂' '😮Sound good enough but since you know i can not do without having anything to sustain me whenever i am thirsty then i suggest you are free to take TWO of the water and since your food has also been stolen by bears and you don't make much left, then you can have the TWO of the food items too and leave the THREE firewood for me with ONE food. How does that sound? 🙂'
Utterance: 'I think we are getting very close to a good deal. Would you be willing to give me ONE firewood in case the stuff I have gets wet?'
answer:
No


question:
Context: 'so If I understand correctly, the Deal is I get 3 Food and 2 Water: While you get 3 Firewood and 1 Water?' 'I was just negotiating the water for now.  I was trying to do one at a time.' 'ah, I'm definitely ok with doing one at a time: A 2:1 split is definitely OK with me: The issue is, if we consider each individually, it might be harder to come to a deal, but I'm happy to do it your way.'
Utterance: 'How about you take 1 firewood, I''l take 2 and with food, you can have 2 and I'll take one package.  I have two very hungry boys!'
answer:
Yes


question:
Context: 'Okay, I need firewood to stay warm and cook food. I'm willing to give up some water for more firewood.' 'Unfortunately i need the firewood. My body has trouble maintaining heat. I need as much as i can get ☹️' 'Okay, well if you need water and firewood, that only leaves food. If you can part with extra food, here's what I'm proposing'
Utterance: 'Yes you can definitely have all the food. Maybe 2 firewoods and 2 waters for me?'
answer:

No


