Task: 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 uv-part strategy, otherwise output No. uv-part is a selfish negotiation strategy. It is used to undermine the requirements of the opponent. For instance, suggesting that the opponent would not need more firewood since they already have the basic supplies or a suggestion that there might be a store near the campsite where the opponent can get the supplies instead.
Categories: Negotiation Strategy Detection
Domains: Dialogue

Positive examples:
input: Context: 'Well maybe we can work something out between us.  Our food and water was in the bags they loss so I really need those.  Do you think you could make do with 1 food and some water?' 'I really need 2 foods. I can do with 1 water or if you are in a giving mood then maybe I can have 2 waters? 🙂' 'Looks like we both really need the food.  If you get 2 food I would need 1 food, 2 water and 3 firewood. '
Utterance: 'Since you will get all the fire would do you think I could have 2 foods and 2 waters. You would get 1 food, 1 water, and 3 firewood. 🙂 You seem like you are a great outdoor person that I would think you would be able to catch some fish to cook with the firewood. 🙂'
output: Yes
explanation: Correct. The participant tries to undermine their opponent's needs by mentioning that the opponent can just fish for food.; input: Context: 'Kindly understand our need as we are struggling with hunger now.'
Utterance: 'At the same from my side. We need foods because my child is hunger'
output: No
explanation: The participant does not try to undermine their opponent's needs. Hence, this is correct.

Negative examples:
input: Context: 'I believe that we have the same priorities.  So we have a large family including children that need the food, but my wife also needs firewood due to poor circulation.  She is susceptible to frost bite and limb loss' 'Okay so how about one of us takes 2 of the food and 1 of the firewood, and the other takes 1 of the food and 2 of the firewood?' 'that sounds fair.  I will take 1 food, 2 firewood, and 2 water, thus giving you 2 food, 1 firewood, 1 water'
Utterance: 'Okay that works for me'
output: Yes
explanation: The utterance simply shows agreement, without undermining the opponent's needs. The correct answer is 'No'.; input: Context: 'my counter then is 2 water, 1 food, and 2 firewood for us and we are set 🙂' 'We're really going to need that extra firewood.  We'll need the heat source, but also for cooking.  It a big deal that I get the extra wood, I hope you will understand why I need it.' 'my people feel like they need 1 extra of something or else they will throw a fit ☹️'
Utterance: 'No fits!!  They're getting that extra water they really want.  I am sure they'll be OK with giving a group with kids a little extra firewood to make this camping trip awesome for them'
output: No
explanation: This is wrong since the participant tries to undervalue their opponent's preferences by saying that they will be ok with the deal where the kids get extra firewood. So the correct answer would be 'Yes'.