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 input: 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 output: No
Example explanation: This is correct. The participant does not create a specific need for anybody.
Q: Context: 'Great! I'm very excited to go camping, how about you?' 'I am! Now, I need a lot of firewood because we were planning on burning some earlier (to start cooking meals and such). I also need some extra food in case bugs come and eat some (like last trip, ugh). How about I take 2 firewood, 2 food, and you take 3 water, 1 firewood, and 1 food?' 'Would you be open to taking 1 less firewood, I would give you 1 food for it. The weather is supposed to be extra chilly and we did not bring warm enough sleeping bags so we need the extra firewood to avoid freezing to death!'
Utterance: 'No, I would need more water if I were to take that deal.'
A:
No