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.

Q: Context: 'That is awesome! The one bad thing about my campsite is there's no stream or lake nearby. I'm going to need a lot of it so I can shower/wash up' 'Well I was hoping to grab some extra water as well, Its suppose to be record highs. ' 'I'm sure we can figure something out. I'm going to need a good amount of firewood too to cook my food. The good news is I won't need any food 🙂'
Utterance: 'Well I'm not interested in any firewood, I already have plenty, I do need extra food however'

A: Yes
****
Q: Context: 'Great, that sounds good to me, are you okay with keeping all the food or would 3 be too much?' 'I'd be ok with keeping all the food. I do eat a bit too much and if for some reason I get lost it would be helpful to have!' 'I agree with that, so you would get the two water and three food and I would get one water and three firewood?'
Utterance: 'Yeah. If that's alright with you? It rained here recently but I bought a top of the line tent and sleeping bag so if I do run out of firewood I'll still be ok.'

A: Yes
****
Q: Context: 'Would you be willing to take more firewood for less food?' 'Yes I think that sounds fair.' 'So if I take 2 foods and 1 firewood, you take 1 food and 2 firewood. What would be fair for water?'
Utterance: 'What if I take two waters and you take one water then?'

A:
No
****