DuLLSoN's page

...
Since this is rules, by the rules you can't just not look at someone. There is no facing or directionality (you're looking in all directions at once).
...

Thanks for reminding that, I believe that invalidates "simply looking at the other way" option.

The "clearly see and hear" allows things like thick fog or darkness or the area of a silence spell to interfere.

Averting your eyes or wearing smoked goggles doesn't help.

That is also my interpretation of the mechanic. Also, intimidate is not a gaze attack by RAW as you point out so, using avert gaze option against it is a little bit on the houseruling side I guess.

I should probably have mentioned in the first post that this was a Society game. That's why I am wondering the behavior of "clearly hear and see" part and the possible interactions by RAW. Intimidation is a vital tool against occult classes and they are frequently seen in society games. Although I agree with some of the rulings suggested here, an official explanation would be better for the sake of Society use.

...
I think taking the miss chance for concealment is worse than the shaken penalty so I don't know why they would bother...

That said, it's not at all clear that you can avert your gaze against anything other than a gaze attack.

Well, he was controlling a psychic BBEG and the worst part was not shaken condition but the fear effect since fear effectively shuts down his spellcasting capabilities.

Was this the GM saying that he knows your tricks? Because if so, then yeah, that's a total dick move on the GM's part.

Yeah, those were his out of character words but I noticed the vibe and we sorted it out later. Our party crushed one of the encounters in an unexpected and anticlimactic way that day, which probably annoyed him and caused him to let his guard down for a moment. No hard feelings really.

Today I was trying to demoralize a foe using intimidation skill and the GM said: "I know what you do, I am simply not looking at you so you can't intimidate me." So, aside from him "knowing" my tricks, I looked up intimidate rules and saw this line again:

Demoralize Opponent:
...
You can only threaten an opponent this way if it is within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you.
...

Now, I know where he got that idea. But how do we handle this "clearly see and hear" part? Just not looking at the character is enough to count as not clearly seeing and break the condition? Or shall we say that the target is able to clearly hear and see the offender and choosing not to look at him is simply not enough?