Just want to add a little to the other 3 answers by @KenGraham,
@OneGodTheFather, and @PeterTurner.
I'm a Trinitarian and this site has been educational for me to learn about non-Trinitarian views as there are plenty of good existing Q&A about them from LDS, JW, Unitarian, Swedenborgian, and other groups claiming Jesus is Christ for them. I admit that it is sometimes hard for me to understand why Trinitarian views may not come naturally to those other groups, so I would appeal for grace and patience from non-Trinitarians to educate us.
Fortunately, we have some objective guidelines that are clearly written and enforced (although not to perfection) that C.SE is a SECULAR site and is not beholden to any Christian group. We all know that the goals of the site are:
clarity of questions: here all parties can legitimately demand clarity of the language used to describe the question (using comments) and can request (with patience and desire for understanding the other) others' input to make the question better understood by potential answerers
prefer substantive questions: if the question is based on some trivial misunderstanding that can be resolved by a simple research or simple digging of a Trinitarian / non-Trinitarian position, then both parties can legitimately judge whether the question has substantive value (using the voting system) or whether the question is more for tripping up / propaganda (trolling). Example:
- common charge by non-Trinitarian against Trinitarian: three "persons" mean three "beings" so Trinitarians cannot be monotheist
- common charge by Trinitarian against Unitarian: logos in John 1:1 clearly refers to the One God who in John 1:14 takes on flesh
In the example above, both sides make a mistake that should have been simple to resolve by a simple research of another's position.
not a site for opinions: thus a Q should be answerable from a narrow enough scope (but not too limiting) by identifying the perspective that belongs to a specific AND established2 theological position
non-proliferation of duplicate questions: more established users and moderators legitimately can suggest existing similar questions and use the question closing mechanism
objectivity of answers: like in #3, the Answer should be verifiable (if not already obvious within the answer) via references to authorities2 that can vouch for the scope identified in the question.
clean comments space: moderators have legitimate mandate to delete unnecessary comments, i.e. comments that have served their purpose to improve a question or an answer. If you want to preserve them, copy those comments to a chat room.
By and large, I think the Trinitarian moderators here have tried very well to be unbiased and to give equal "first citizen" space to non-Trinitarian denominations. If there are comments here and there that show some impatience with what they think as trivial misunderstanding, which in turn makes a question / answer not substantive, I think it will be good to exercise the Christian spirit to try to understand each other better and to appeal to clarity and objectivity which if we Christians don't think we can have, will make all of us (both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians) either lose trust in the English language (no clarity) or degenerate into the law of the jungle (no objectivity1, since each simply imposes power / popularity from one's subjectivity).
1 Note: objectivity here doesn't mean ultimate truth with regards to God, but what a certain group's position IS about God, i.e. their claim on possessing true knowledge about God
2 A note for what I mean by "established" and "authorities" in #3 and #5: I understand that Unitarians are at a disadvantage here because they are relatively new, and there are not many established authorities that a Q or an A can appeal too, unlike LDS and JW who have their official websites. Personally, I accept Dale Tuggy and Bill Schlegel to be cited as authority for Biblical Unitarian because their view seems to gain following by Biblical Unitarian adherents; their view seems to be de facto authority. But unfortunately it's the responsibility to the minority view to advocate the appropriate source that the moderators and established users can also accept as worthy adjudicators when objectivity becomes an issue.