Not that I'd criticize Kreilly (Germ was very vulnerable in that game), but I still think the ideal victory is one that comes without betraying a good ally. (And yes I've stabbed in 3/4 of my games, not counting the CD-take-over silly business that never afforded me the opportunity.. But I'd like to tell myself that it was my ally's fault in each case, for being uncooperative or revealing their own ill intent in various ways..)
I'm new to the game, so my views may change in time, but I feel like it's better to win together rather than greedily depriving an ally of their own hard fought SCs in the pursuit of the quick/easy victory. I play to win, but I'd much rather let my ally take a close second and be dutifully rewarded if we've worked well together to defeat the other players. (This is assuming PPSC of course, so I'm also not that worried about finishing a close second myself).
If you pick a good ally, and plan well such that both of you can expand without forcing the other into a corner, this seems feasible to me. Assuming there's no draw, the victor will be whichever member of the alliance manages their own front better and thus grows stronger, faster.. or just a courtesy yield by one ally to the other. (I've guessed at the latter from reviewing other games, though I've not witnessed it personally).
Of course alot depends on what you value (points? Wins? Draws?), and PPSC vs WTA play.. And given the potental for stalemates and slow play in the late game, I can see why a quick/ruthless stab may be more fun for everyone in the long run..