Whoa, this is going out of proportion!

Is it really necessary to debate about why enough damage is/not necessary to have fun in the game? If it were about me, I wouldn't mind all the damage: regardless of the relatively "low" optimization, it still requires a few feat and item choices to make it work as-is, whereas the core Monk can deal nearly five times the dynamic part of the dice (around the same level, with Monk's Belt, and then getting INA, Expansion and probably something else in order to stack size increases, or having Greater Mighty Wallop). Compared to that, the increase from Wisdom is small. The advantage of the latter is its static nature, which makes it able to increase through critical hits (but you're working with an unarmed strike, which doesn't have the best crit range OR crit multiplier) and deals sure damage, but I've constantly stressed the idea that the damage dice is perhaps a bit too exaggerate, and could be changed without harming the Monk that much.

Now, I would debate on whether the Monk can do more than just "punch things really hard", because reducing the damage ratio of the class might somewhat nerf it, considering jiriku's focus is on "mobile skirmisher". Isn't the point to deal a nice amount of damage instead of debating that's "too much", even if it requires optimization (little, but it requires such). I'd consider having taken something too far if I had the idea of "mobile skirmisher" and then made him a better tank than the Crusader (something which wasn't the whole point); however, if he can deal quite a bit of damage without sacrificing movement, then it's fine. Can the playtest character pull off all the attacks after movement, or just about 2? jiriku mentions Snap Kick, plus his flurry works during pouncing or Spring Attacking, so it relies on a specific set of tactics (either stand still and flurry, or move and flurry; if the enemy is airborne and the Monk can't get him, he's toast, and high jump can only take him that far). If, to that, you insist that damage is too little, then it seems you're losing the focus of the class.

However, it's incorrect to support the other argument based on hyperboles, such as "the Cleric and the Druid can do that, so the Monk must". Ideally, it should be "the Rogue and the Warblade and the Swordsage can, so the Monk should as well". Can the Rogue do loads of damage as effectively as the Monk? Can the Warblade do the same? Does the Swordsage still eclipse the Monk? Those should be the questions answered, rather than comparing them to high Tier classes or considering X amount of damage too much when the focus of the class is high damage and superior mobility (and dabbling into party face and infiltration).

Geez, what one has to do for their rivals...