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 no-need strategy, otherwise output No. no-need is a cooperative negotiation strategy. It is used when a participant points out that they do not need an item based on personal context such as suggesting that they have ample water to spare. no-need can directly benefit the opponent since it implies that the item is up for grabs.

[EX Q]: Context: 'hello. so what are you thinking about this whole situation?' 'Hey, I think that this is nice, we get to go camping and get extra stuff. But definitely need more food and firewood'
Utterance: 'Yeah, I think I'm okay with firewood, but I'd really like more food and water.'
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Context: 'Hello' 'Hi there.. how are you doing today?  I hope well!  🙂  So, it looks like we need to divy up these supplies, huh?  Do you have any thoughts on the issue?'
Utterance: 'I'm doing fine thank you, how about you? Well for my trip I'm most interesting in socializing so a great campfire a night would be great, I'd prefer not to boil water either so want extra of that too. Food less so as I will go fishing and know wild vegetables, fruits and mushrooms I can pick. How about you?'
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Context: 'Okay so we can think about splitting the firewood. 🙂 I'm also interested in water because I plan to do a lot of activities like hiking and kayaking, so it will be helpful for me to be able to hydrate more.' 'That is okay. What about i get 2 packages of firewood and then you get 2 packages of water. Is that okay with you?' 'Since I'm most interested in firewood, I would want 3 waters if you're going to get more firewood.'
Utterance: 'Nice. That's okay with me. You get 3 waters and a I get 3 firewood'
[EX A]:
No