, I usually try to do it like that. I often use this technique in other scenarios as well, since it allows me to use the sound field more effectively. It's not something that is totally unique, a lot of professionals use similar approaches. Actually this "work-around" approach works very well in recording and mixing. I think that's partly because sound is consumed under psycho-acoustic terms. Besides this I always try to find alternatives that I don't seem to have when I target a problem. That's a part of the "decision making" approach that I have on recording, since bad decisions are always made when you have come as far in your way of dealing with a problem that you realise you "must" choose one of several bad options. I use that as an alert when I'm mixing... That alert goes off when I am about to start panning a problem track in mono...
I hardly make any compensation to get things to sound better in mono these days cuz no one gives a #$%^. Any system that is in mono these days is of so low fidelity that no one cares. With that in mind, it doesn't seem logical to sacrifice what ultimately kicks the most ass in stereo, for a little more clarity in mono. Do you really want to put a disclaimer on your product that says, well it could have sounded much better but I had to make sure I had the most clarity in mono just in case. I guarantee if you listen to alot of amazing sounding records in mono they just don't sound as amazing. That's cuz this mixing thing is all about sacrifice and compromise.  Wide is good, it's what makes things sound alive. As long as the vibe comes through in mono these days things are A OK. Just my 2 cents.
You're missing the point, I think. Maybe you need to reread the thread.
We're all still talking about stereo mixes here. We're saying that if you refine your mix to sound good in mono, you'll improve your stereo mix. We're talking frequency space and phase cancellation, important aspects of any stereo mix that are easily identified and alleviated with mono listening.
Aside from that, I'll add again: Most large venues playback stereo audio in mono. 
In addition to venues, it should be noted that many people end up hearing mono over their FM radios some of the time, depending on their listening habits and geogrpahy, since many tuners (particularly car tuners) switch to mono as reception deteroriates.
Hey, my Tivoli audio model one radio is mono - it sounds great for the size and almost all of my friends have one in their kitchen.
In fact I often 'borrow' it to check out mono compatabilty - funnily enough it really lets you know if there are some problems in the low mids.
I completely disagree that making most elements sound better in mono will improve them in stereo and yes I did read the thread. I am of course assuming that people are not making significant "mistakes". Ideally a mix will sound amazing in stereo and good in mono. I was mainly addressing the idea that moving pans around in mono is not a very valid mixing technique because the whole purpose of panning is to place something specifically in the stereo spectrum creating a "space". I am saying that someone should not sacrifice the desired panning position in a stereo mix to improve the mono re-representation. Stereo is just so much more important these days. As far as large PA systems running in mono, no of course I don't want my mixes to sound bad on these, but the reality of that is, even more than the mono representation of the material, the affects of over the top limiting completely ruin the audio experience in the first place at hi sound pressure levels (1/4 db dynamic range at very hi sound pressure levels translates into not being able to distinguish anything in a mix). Furthermore 99 percent of large PA systems are in horrible audio environments and vary so much in their setup and have so many deficiencies no one is getting a "relatively realistic" audio representation anyway. This is a situation where the material has to do the job, but any subtleties are not represented in the environment. Hence once again, I say these days we mix in stereo, for stereo.
I think a perfect example recently of this is several months ago I was down at Steve Marcussens with and Louie added some M/S widening to a track. In mono the guitars drop significantly in volume compared to listening in stereo, not to the point of ruinning any representation of the song, but enough to significantly hear a difference. In stereo though the mix got significantly more exciting. It was a choice made specifically with the significance of stereo being much more important these days.
Are you shure about this.
I thought most club these days play stereo.
Any experienced danceclub(s!) engineer here who can tell for shure?
If you do a mix in stereo, then fold it to mono it might not rock properly.
If you make a mix rock in mono, then switch to stereo, it will rock even more.  There is no reason NOT to do it.....
Regarding clubs, most clubs do pump in mono. Some are in stereo, and a few have surround systems. The problem with this is that unless your right in the middle of the dance floor, you won't realize the full effects of it. This is why it is so important for dance mixes to work well in mono, so it sounds good no matter where you are in the club. Then you got the bathrooms and patios and such, all in mono.
Trust me, nothing is more annoying than some mix sounding funny in a store cuz the mixer mixed the whole thing in stereo, without checking it's mono response. Some guys use stereo entirely to their advantage, and this is fine, until it's played over a mono system.
Also, you have to consider how many people don't properly place stereo speakers. How many times have you been to someones house where 1 speaker is on a shelf, and the other is in the other room.....
Mono is more important than you think it is.

If you are creating the 3d model yourself, here are some guidelines for having the most success, reducing costs of your prints and reducing post processing as much as possible. Depending on your end goal for your design, some of the recommendations below may not be feasible. Feel free to contact us to further discuss any of these items.
While you can print just about anything with 3D printing, there are still challenges to overcome in designing for the technology. Our goal is for our prints to match your design as close as possible and look as clean as possible, but we need your help to accomplish this.
Please note that 3d printing software works in mm. If you are working in any other unit of measure please include this information with your files.
3D printers only print pure geometry, so you need to make sure your model is smooth enough to print well. If you are using a polygon modeler remember to turn off any rendering shaders since they fake smoothness on the screen.
If your model looks chunky on-screen you will need to add more subdivisions which means adding more polygons. How many subdivisions to add is a tough question since the answer depends on multiple factors. A sphere may look a little blocky on screen but maybe it’s only 10 mm in diameter when printed so, at that size, it will probably print just fine. It’s also possible to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and have too many subdivisions. Going crazy with subdividing will bog down your modeling program, the STL export, the mesh repair program, the slicer and maybe even the printer.
A good example of over-subdividing is making small holes on a typical printer. If you add enough subdivisions to make a perfectly smooth hole the printer won’t be able to properly translate so many small moves. It’s better to use a lower edge count which will produce a smoother printed opening.
Booling uses add, subtract and intersect functions to combine geometry in different ways. It’s an important feature for modeling and for 3D printing in particular. You can easily make a model by taking a bunch of primitives and sticking them together and it will look okay and render okay, but probably won’t print well–if at all.
The problem is mashed together parts have hidden geometry that is inside the other parts, but still gets sliced and printed. This can cause problems with the slicing software–making it take longer to finish, or even crash–and the resulting model will often be messed up, have holes or weird geometry problems.
Even if the model slices properly it will take longer to print and use more materials since all that hidden geometry is being printed as well. 
This is kind of an M.C. Escher, impossible geometry problem where more than two faces of an object share the same edge or vertex which is bad and will cause print errors. Or if it prints fine parts of the object may fall off. You may have to rebuild a portion of the object to correct this problem or use mesh repair software.
Supported walls are walls that are connected to other structures or connected on at least two sides. The minimum thickness that your model should have at any one given point is 0.8mm thick for plastic filament printers and 1mm for SLA/DLP resin prints.
Unsupported walls are walls that are connected to the rest of the print on only one side. They should be at least 0.8mm thick for plastic filament printers and 0.5mm for SLA/DLP resin prints.
Embossed & engraved details are features on the model that are raised above or recessed below the model surface. They should be at least 0.6mm wide