I have placed myself in their shoes when I discussed huge fireworks going of near us within 200 yards until 3am several times a year. I spoke to the neighbors, analyzed the situation, and leave it alone.

I'm being downvoted because I suggested that parent put on their grown-up pants and deal with the nuisance 1 out of 365 nights of the year.

Were the partiers rude? Yes. Were they a nuisance? Yes.

Should parent feel "proud" to passive-aggressively threaten the partiers with the force of the institutional monopoly on violence?

Uh, no.

They didn't try to talk to their neighbor. They wanted to enact vengeance. (That is, after all, the whole point of this thread.) And they are proud of their escalation without attempting any other means of resolution.

So if parent doesn't want to allow a neighbor to indulge and encroach 1 of 365 nights, okay. That's their prerogative. I disagree and think it's childish, but fine.

But they removed the humanity from the situation and with absolute cowardice anonymously threatened the neighbors the third year based on the unfounded presumption that it was intentionally antagonistic, I guess?

While I understand that much of Hacker News may not want to be bothered by the noise—and thusly my suggestion to grin and bear it is grounds for downvoting—I absolutely struggle to see why they view an attempt at human-touch resolution is inferior to threatening the police on someone.

I'm sure I'll be downvoted for this comment, as well. The trend to avoid real human interaction in favor of tattling to Uncle Sam is accelerating, so I imagine my voice is unsettling.

I appreciate your response, however. I tend to get downvoted without reply or explanation, and presumably because they disagree and not because it is out of context for the discussion, as stated in the rules. But these comments are in violation of the rules, so I'll stop talking about it, now.

Thank you again for your thoughtful reply!