Wie sollen Rechtssysteme auf Regeln reagieren, die Provider von Netzgemeinschaften wie Facebook oder World of Warcraft Nutzenden auferlegen? Das positive Recht gibt hierauf keine verlässliche Antwort. Erst ein Verständnis der Legitimität der Regeln ermöglicht ein Austarieren des Verhältnisses zwischen den Regelwerken von Netzgemeinschaften und Rechtssystemen. Nach Literaturstimmen sollen die Regeln durch außerrechtliche Mechanismen (z.B. direktdemokratische Verfahren), eine gerichtliche Kontrolle nach verfassungsrechtlichen Kriterien oder Zivilverfassungen legitimiert werden. Es ist aber zweifelhaft, ob Netzgemeinschaften legitime außerrechtliche Mechanismen schaffen können, ob sie wie Staaten behandelt werden sollten und ob Zivilverfassungen entstehen werden. Die Arbeit schlägt ein alternatives Modell vor: Im deutschen Zivilrecht zeichnet sich ein Legitimitätsmodell für private Regeln ab, das auf Regeln von Netzgemeinschaften anwendbar ist und als transnationale Schablone dienen kann. Danach werden die Regeln durch die Zustimmung und das Wohl der Nutzenden legitimiert. Letzteres gewährleistet ein Ausbeutungsschutz der Nutzenden in Form einer gerichtlichen Kontrolle. Die Anwendung des Modells führt zu folgenden Erkenntnissen: 1. Geschriebene Regeln sind schwach durch Zustimmung legitimiert. Eine gerichtliche Kontrolle nach vertragsrechtlichen Kriterien (bei Regelungen des Austauschverhältnisses zwischen Providern und Nutzenden) oder grundrechtlichen Kriterien (bei Verhaltensregeln) verleiht ihnen zusätzliche Legitimität. Die Kontrollintensität hängt von der Höhe des Ausbeutungsrisikos und der Existenz von legitimen außerrechtlichen Mechanismen ab. 2. Code-Regeln (z.B. Newsfeed- Algorithmen) sind auch nur schwach durch Zustimmung legitimiert. Gerichtliche Kontrollmöglichkeiten, die sie gegenüber Nutzenden legitimieren, müssen noch geschaffen werden. 3. Geschriebene und Code-Regeln sind illegitim gegenüber Nichtnutzenden, weil sie nicht auf deren Zustimmung beruhen. / How should legal systems respond to rules that virtual community providers such as Facebook or World of Warcraft impose on users? To answer this question, we must look beyond black letter law. Only an understanding of the legitimacy of these rules allows us to balance out their relationship with legal systems. Current scholarship theorizes their legitimacy as follows: Non-legal mechanisms (e.g. direct voting systems), judicial review according to constitutional principles, or digital civil constitutions may legitimize the rules. Yet, three points remain doubtful: whether virtual communities can develop legitimate self-governance mechanisms, whether they should be treated like states, and whether digital civil constitutions will effectively emerge. This work proposes an alternative legitimacy model: German private law reflects a legitimacy model for private rule-making applicable to rules of virtual communities which can serve as a transnational template. This model suggests that the rules can derive legitimacy from two sources: user consent and the common good of users, the latter ensured by judicial review protecting users against exploitation. This leads to the following key findings: 1. Written rules of virtual communities are weakly legitimized by user consent but derive additional legitimacy from judicial review. Contract law standard applies to rules that govern the bilateral exchange relationship between providers and users. General rules of conduct for users are checked against fundamental rights. The required intensity of review depends on the risk of user exploitation and the presence of legitimate self-governance mechanisms. 2. Rules embedded in computer code (e.g. newsfeed algorithms) are poorly legitimized by user consent. Judicial review procedures legitimizing them towards users still need to be established. 3. Both written rules and rules embedded in computer code are not legitimate towards non-users since non-users have not consented to them.

本研究之目的在於探討線上社群協作與其前置因素之關係，並且檢驗社群投入度之中介效果。首先，本研究應用角色內與角色外行為分類，提出角色內與角色外線上社群協作之類型。其次，依據社會認知理論與社會交換理論，本研究提出線上社群協作之前置因素，包括對個人之結果預期、對社群之結果預期、知覺社群信任、知覺社群規範、知覺社群支持與知覺社群認同。最後，本研究基於投入度觀點，檢驗社群投入度對於線上社群協作及其前置因素之中介效果。 本研究之研究情境為玩家公會社群，本研究自一知名大型多人線上遊戲中收集340份有效問卷進行資料分析與假設檢驗，研究結果顯示：(1) 除社群禮貌外，社群投入度對於社群合作行為、助人行為與運動家精神皆有正向影響；(2) 對個人之結果預期與線上社群協作行為之關係，會受到社群投入度所中介；(3) 對社群之結果預期與線上社群協作行為之關係，會受到社群投入度所中介；(4) 知覺社群信任與線上社群協作行為之關係，會受到社群投入度所中介；(5) 知覺社群規範與線上社群協作行為之關係，會受到社群投入度所中介，但社群規範對於運動家精神亦有直接負向效果；(6) 知覺社群認同與線上社群協作行為之關係，會受到社群投入度所中介，但社群認同亦會直接正向影響社群合作與助人行為；(7) 然而，知覺社群支持與線上社群協作行為之關係，並不會受到社群投入度所中介。針對上述之研究結果，本研究進一步闡述其學術研究意涵、實務管理意涵，以及研究限制與未來研究方向。 / The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between online community collaboration and its antecedents by examining the mediating effect of community engagement. First, this study proposes a classification of online community collaboration by following the typology of in-role and extra-role behaviors. Accordingly, this study will further examine some of online community collaboration behaviors, including community cooperation, helping behavior, community courtesy, and sportsmanship. Second, drawing upon social cognitive theory and social exchange theory, this study identifies several antecedents of online community collaboration, including person-relevant outcome expectancy, community-relevant outcome expectancy, perceived community trust, perceived community norms, perceived community support, and perceived community identification. Finally, from the perspective of engagement, this study will examine the mediating effect of community engagement on the proposed model. The research setting of this study is online gaming communities. After collecting 340 valid responses from a famous Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG), our results show that (1) community engagement affects community cooperation, helping behavior and sportsmanship positively, but does not have a significant effect on community courtesy; (2) the relationships between person-relevant outcome expectancy and three online community collaboration behaviors are mediated by community engagement; (3) the relationships between community-relevant outcome expectancy and three online community collaboration behaviors are mediated by community engagement; (4) the relationships between perceived community trust and three online community collaboration behaviors are mediated by community engagement; (5) the relationships between perceived community norms and three online community collaboration behaviors are mediated by community engagement, but perceived community norms also has a direct and negative impact on sportsmanship; (6) the relationships between perceived community identification and three online community collaboration behaviors are mediated by community engagement, but perceived community identification also has direct and positive impacts on community cooperation and helping behavior; (7) the relationships between perceived community support and online community collaboration behaviors are not mediated by community engagement. According to these findings, this study concludes with research implications, managerial implications, research limitations and future research directions.