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 self-need strategy, otherwise output No. self-need is a selfish negotiation strategy. It is used to create a personal need for an item in the negotiation, such as by pointing out that the participant sweats a lot to show preference towards water packages.

Example Input: Context: 'That's fair, but I have wiggle room on the water, how about I take two food, two firewood and you take 3 water, 1 food, 1 firewood?' 'Is there anyway you will go with that I get two firewood? I need food the most but since you get most of that can I get most of the firewood? So 1 food, 2 firewood, and 2 water for me?' 'You drive a hard bargain. I could really use that firewood. It's going to get cold tonight and these sleeping bags are not worth the price I paid ;)'
Utterance: 'Haha, I know but I am in the same situation! ☹️ and since I am getting less food I feel like it is fair I get on more firewood since I truly need that 🙂'
Example Output: No

Example Input: Context: 'hello' 'Hey! How are you? My bestie and I were going to be going on a camping trip, but my other friends heard about it and wanted to come along so we're going to need more supplies than I initially though which has got me a little worried. ☹️' 'Yes!!! I need some water pretty bad. I am good on food because I fish and I have been able to catch some catfish from the lake. How about I take 2 water 2 firewood and 1 food'
Utterance: 'I need a lot of food, because of how many people are coming now (like 3 times as many). Also, there's only one stream in the area and it's really far from our campsite, so it would be super inconvenient to have to hike there everyday to refill our canteens. We are in a forest though, so we should be good for wood. Since you can easily fish, what if I take 3 food and 2 water? You can keep all the firewood. 🙂'
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Context: ' I would agree to that if I can also have two things of firewood. I am going to need a lot of wood, so I can cook the meals I am making 🙂' 'I completely understand, thank you for compromising with water and food. Wished we had 4 firewoods to divide and share it equaly, may I ask how long will you be camping for? Im afraid I need 2 firewoods as well, maybe we can see who has the greater need? ' 'I am going to be camping for a couple of weeks, so I will need quite a bit. I also realized some additional water would be good, because I have some meals that need me to boil water. Maybe you can have 2 firewood in exchange for me having one of your waters? Then you would still have plenty of water, but also plenty of firewood 🙂'
Utterance: 'So sorry, I just realized you did not agree to the 3 waters in exchange of 3 foods. if you want a water, i will also will need one food. just to make things more fair on my end. If not i am looking at 2 waters, 0 foods, and 1 firewood. But i am willing to compromise for 3 waters, 1 firewood, and 0 foods. and you'll get 3 foods, 2 firewoods, and 0 waters, what do you think?'
Example Output:
No