Wow, what a coincidence, something similar, yet different recently happened to me.
There was a winter game posted that piqued my interest, so I gave the write-up a once over, and posted 'in'. Apparently, I glossed over an important nugget in my once over. Something, as it turned out, I've never seen, ever, in a game thread before. A little caveat about being 100% committed to a 'rain' date game two weeks after the original game date.
So then, another game at a different venue gets posted, on the same day as the 'possible' yet, uncomfirmed second game from the first host. Come hell or high water, I'm going to the other game, as it's inline with my WW2 sensibilities. But at the time, in my mind there is no problem, two different fields and two different dates. Then through the grapevine I hear that the host of the first game is sending pm's to several other players, in the same shoe as me (even though at this point I hadn't posted 'in' yet on ASC for the FR game, I guess that's the reason I didn't get a pm?) So, I send a pm to the host, and ask for clarification about the possibility that the second game date will actually be used 100%. I'm basically given a reiteration of the game thread caveat and given the choice to remain or take my name off the list. I chose 'out'.
The above scenario is what happened to me. It is different than what the original poster is asking here in this thread. When I posted 'in' for the 11th, I was 100% committed to that day, and in my error I glossed over the tidbit about the rigidity of the 'rain' date.
So, am I 'dishonourable' because of this? Is this an adequate reason to start a thread because of me and three others in this situation?
The Shepherd always finds His sheep.
The Flat Earth has me Levelled.