instruction:
You are given first 5 messages from a series of message exchanges between 2 persons playing the game of Diplomacy which is an American strategic board game. You need to generate the next message. The message should be generated such that it fits the context seen so far. Avoid the text that is (i) tangent to the context, (ii) repeats the context.
question:
['Hey France! Looking forward to playing with you!', '👌', 'You too man', 'The chats are so funny....yeah, I think your :ok_hand is telling the truth 😂', 'it said send an emoji and I dont read instructions as a matter of principle']
answer:
Yeah, rip


question:
["Hello, England! What's your general train of thought on what to do?", 'Not quite sure yet to be honest -- still trying to get to know the board', 'Any ideas on your end?', "My inclination is to focus south. I won't put an army in StP, you don't put an army in Norway. Fair deal?", 'That sounds good to me']
answer:
I just hope you're not planning a Juggernaut ~~ then it'd be almost irresponsible of me to not do anything ya?


question:
["Hello Germany, nice to make your acquaintance. \n\nI've been thinking about this game alot, because the fact that it will only last until 1910 really changes my strategy. Add in that no one is likely to NMR and I believe it will be near impossible to solo. \n\nNormally when playing Russia I try to grab a couple German centers around 1904, allowing me to hold over the stalemate line setting up a solo when I conquer the East. Since I'm not intending to solo in this game, however, it doesn't make sense to go after your centers. It would be much better for both of us, I believe, to agree to a pact of non aggression. I could even offer some help against England, if there came a time when you wished that. What do you think?", "Interesting points.  I've been thinking about how the format and time limitation might change the game as well.\n\nFor transparency, England reached out to me as well, and generally I think Germany working with England is, in a vacuum, the best course.\n\nI'm fine with a non-aggression pact, but we need to set pretty clear ground rules - I'm significantly more vulnerable than you.  Interested in each of us setting up a proposal, and see how well they match?", 'How about a commitment to something like the following through Spring 2003.  We can revisit or extend from there, and of course any of these are subject to specific agreement otherwise:\n\n- Total DMZ in SIL & PRU\n- No German units in BoT or LVN\n- Germany concedes Sweden, but only to be occupied by fleets.\n- No Russian units in BAL\n- No army builds in Berlin\n- No army builds in StP\n- Notify before a build in WAR\n\nWhat do you think?', 'I agree to all of those points.\n\nJust to be clear, England is not necessarily a target of mine, but if necessary I can act as an insurance policy against English aggression for you.', "By the way, for whatever it's worth I am hearing talk coming back to me that you are looking to open north.  Again, it's spring '01, so talk is pretty cheap.  But just thought I'd flag it for you."]
answer:

Talk is cheap, and after Spring resolution you will see that I fully intend to abide by our agreement. 

The fact that you brought this up with me really builds trust with me. I did tell Austria that I was heading North West, but obviously that is a lie. I hope that you see it to be in your best interest to keep that confidential because I truly do intend to work with you all the way through 1910.